Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS BILL

Order for consideration read.

Lords amendments agreed to.

To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much he now expects manufacturing output to increase during 1987.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): In his Autumn Statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast that manufacturing output would be 5 per cent. higher in 1987 than in 1986.

Mr. Bennett: May I start, Mr. Speaker, by wishing you many happy returns of the day on behalf of us all.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the enormous increase in manufacturing productivity of the past two or three years means that we shall be in very good shape to weather the storm caused by the international fall in equity prices?

Mr. Butcher: For the past three or four years the British economy has celebrated particularly happy anniversaries, in that it has grown faster than nearly all our major industrial competitors. As to the fall in equities, I am encouraged by the fact that the main barometer used by the manufacturing sector — its order book position — remains healthy, and recent CBI reports confirm that.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that textile firms, such as Lees-Newsome Ltd. in my constituency, have been badly affected by the increase in electricity charges? The company has written to me, and perhaps to the Minister, claiming that its export potential will be diminished by that increase. Was there any consultation with the Department before these increased charges were allowed?

Mr. Butcher: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the detail of the hon. Gentleman's question under question 5. Suffice to say the textile industry has enjoyed a remarkable recovery. It is getting its order share back and is concentrating on improving its design. It is obtaining higher value and has become very competitive. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be proud of that.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does it not augur well for manufacturing output in 1988 that 49 per cent. of CBI companies expect to increase their investment in plant and machinery next year? Given the uncertainties in the financial markets, is that not a positive endorsement of the strength of the British economy and of the new competitiveness of British industry?

Mr. Butcher: That is very much the case. In the Autumn Statement, growth is projected at 3·5 per cent. for manufacturing output in 1988. It is a long time since the British economy has been able to sustain good, non-inflationery, real growth arising from increased competition and improvement in market share. All the signs are good.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Given that manufacturing investment in Britain is still lower than it was in 1979, that British real interest rates are higher than those of our competitors, that manufacturing imports have a higher share of our market than of any other advanced industrial country and that the pound against the deutschmark is now up by 11 per cent. in real terms compared with February, the Minister will not be too optimistic about prospects for manufacturing, so I shall ask him a simple, straightforward question: can he name one industrial country that has had a lower increase in manufacturing output than Britain since 1979?

Mr. Butcher: I can understand why the Opposition are getting increasingly desperate in their search for bad news. Throughout the 1970s we were at the bottom of the league table in manufacturing output and growth, and we are now consistently at the top. This country is now enjoying increased competitiveness in each of its major sectors and has an excellent future.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will be aware that many economic pundits wrote off manufacturing as a source of new jobs. How does my hon. Friend expect this increase in output to be reflected in the manufacturing sector and employment?

Mr. Butcher: Until recently it was fashionable to say that, with the introduction of new manufacturing techniques, especially automation, it would be impossible to reverse the fall in employment in the manufacturing sector. That need not always be the case in future. It depends entirely on the way in which we continue to increase our market share. I fully agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in July that inflation is certainly under control, that the balance of payments is likely to be manageable and that output is rising relatively fast.

Balance of Trade (Manufactures)

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recently available monthly figure for the United Kingdom balance of trade in manufactures.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): For the month of October there was a deficit of £0·7 billion in trade in manufactures.

Mr. Cummings: According to recent figures, we are heading for a £7·5 billion deficit this year. Is it true that the deficit is not just in traditional industries but in high technology new industries? Does the Minister agree with


the Chancellor's statement that the deficit is neither here nor there? Will the hon. Gentleman direct his attention away from the City and concentrate on those parts of the economy that are creating wealth and providing and selling goods and services?

Mr. Clark: The deficit estimate has already been revised downwards twice. The estimate by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement was already a downward revision from the estimate in the March Budget review. I believe that the figures will undershoot that estimate when the whole year is assessed.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it true that under the Labour Government and, indeed, for most of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s our balance of trade in manufactured goods moved rapidly towards deficit, but that in the past four years, for the first time in many years, not only has that deterioration stopped but our share of world trade in manufactures has increased?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Plainly, I have no responsibility for the direction of events under the Labour Government. The important point is that the quality of new manufacturing in terms of productivity and commercial resilience is now quite different.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister know that, according to answers given by his colleagues, since 1980 about 22 million tonnes of hot-rolled steel have been imported? Does he also know that last year £1·1 billion worth of hot-rolled steel was imported? What will the hon. Gentleman do about this ruinous situation? Privatisation will not help.

Mr. Clark: The traffic, both inward and outward, in steel is, to a large extent, a function of our obligations under the treaty of Rome as a member of the European Community.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the outrageous position whereby British manufacturers of shoes and leather goods are handicapped when seeking to enter the Japanese market, not only by levies but by quotas? To add insult to injury, no one can find out who owns those quotas. Will my hon. Friend see whether he can knock some sense into the Japanese?

Mr. Clark: I am always delighted when the House returns to the subject of our trade relations with Japan. In fact, the shoe and leather section is one of the least satisfactory in that regard. However, I must say in all honesty—I hope that the House may take some credit for this improvement having expressed its indignation so forcefully last July—that our manufactured exports to Japan have increased by 30 per cent. over the past year.

Mr. Kennedy: What analysis is the Department making of the effect of the Governments regional policy — particularly the cuts in regional grants that the Government have made over the past three years—on our ability to contribute towards manufacturing output, not least from the Scottish economy.

Mr. Clark: The question refers to the balance of trade in manufactures. However, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a short answer, I understand that there have been no cuts in regional development grants.

Inner Cities

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the most recent figures for the establishment of manufacturing and service industry firms in the inner cities.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I regret that the information requested by my hon. Friend is not available because we do not keep the statistics on this basis.

Mr. Bowis: Nevertheless, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although the Government are making great strides in their policy towards encouraging investment in the inner cities in both manufacturing and services, there is still great scope for more private investment? Will he examine in particular the concept of the tax-exempt bond, along the lines of the industrial revenue bonds that have worked successfully in America?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that there is scope for more encouragement of new investment and start-up business in inner-city areas. That is why we are working so closely in many ways with Business in the Community, Investment in Industry and the clearing banks, and with the task force areas in particular, to try to boost investment. I am familiar with the tax-exempt bonds used in the United States. My hon. Friend will no doubt address questions on that to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, too. I am not sure that the tax relief policies of the United States would automatically command support here.

Mr. Madden: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that while he and Lord Young have been conspiring to get control of the Prime Minister's inner-city campaign, that campaign has died a death? Will he confirm that unless the Government are prepared to inject substantial new money into rebuilding inner cities, such as Bradford, private investment will not have the confidence to be forthcoming? When will he revive the campaign and inject substantial new money so that the important job of rebuilding our inner cities can get under way?

Mr. Clarke: I thought that public interest in a non-existent campaign by my noble Friend and myself had died a death. No such campaign is taking place. The Governments inner-city policy—the urban development corporations, the city action teams and the inner-city task forces—is going ahead with great strength. More than 200 private sector firms are collaborating with our 16 inner-city task forces in projects of all kinds.

Mr. Holt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to refute the statement by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) by pointing out to him that £100 million of private investment has been put into Teesside development corporation in the 10 weeks since it was established?

Mr. Clarke: I can certainly confirm that. There is very widespread support in Teesside for the work that is beginning in the urban development corporation area. We are backing the Cleveland youth business centre, and that idea is now making very reasonable progress, with private sector and public sector funds going into the project.

Mr. Caborn: It is appalling that the answer to the question is that the information is not available, especially


as the Minister is personally in charge of the inner-city task force and, as I am led to believe, gives his personal endorsement to every scheme. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many organisations—particularly chambers of commerce, chambers of trade and local authorities — are highly critical of the Governments unco-ordinated piecemeal approach to the inner-city and urban regeneration policies? What exactly is happening on the Government side? The Daily Telegraphon Monday said:
Thatcher set to appoint Inner Cities Minister.
Who is now co-ordinating the policy? The Prime Minister seems to be setting up yet another Ministry for the inner cities. Will the Chancellor tell us the exact position with regard to the co-ordination of inner-city policies? Who has control?.

Mr. Clarke: No Government have ever kept statistics on a separate inner-city basis of the kind that have been asked for. I certainly agree that there is a case for considering whether we should keep statistics on that basis. We have always had the support of chambers of commerce and we have had the support of growing numbers of private sector companies. I have had discussions with the CBI, and I am already working with Business in the Community. Since the election most local authorities, too, have been working with us on inner-city policy.
On the last question, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Prime Minister is co-ordinating the Governments inner-city policy, which is consuming a great deal of effort and many resources in a large number of Government Departments.

Financial Fraud

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff his Department s companies investigations department employs; and if he will make a statement on its investigation of financial fraud.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Francis Maude): The current figure for staff in post in the companies investigation branch of my Department is 53 — a 50 per cent. increase during the past 12 months.
The branch's own investigators are mainly engaged in fact-finding inquiries under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985, but the branch also acts as a point of reference within my Department for non-departmental inspectors appointed to carry out investigations under sections 431, 432, 442, and 446 of the Companies Act 1985.

Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that in recent years record numbers of overseas banks, financial institutions and companies have come to the City of London to raise funds and that they have received an extremely efficient and effective service from the City? Is he aware that they respect the integrity of the companies that operate in the City, and that that is of immense benefit for invisible exports in our balance of payments?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every financial centre depends on maintaining and enhancing its level of business and on showing itself to be a safe and clean place to do business. The City of London is showing itself to be just that.

Mr. Bermingham: Bearing in mind recent history in the City, and as the special fraud squad has been created under the Director of Public Prosecutions, is it not time for closer liaison between the two departments to ensure the speedy prosecution of fraudsters?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that close co-ordination is important. Indeed, that already exists at a hitherto unknown level, with the precise object of ensuring that investigations are completed swiftly. The results are processed quickly so that, if prosecutions are desirable and necessary, they can be got under way at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the investigation and prosecution of modern, highly sophisticated fraud the authorities are rather like a penny-farthing bumbling about in the jet age? Will he therefore fight the Treasury to ensure that those departments have the latest examples of information technology, which will be an advantage in speeding up the process of justice for both the defence and the prosecution?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is essential that regulators and those concerned with the enforcement of the law are sufficiently well manned and equipped to match the challenges that they face. The serious fraud office, which is now being set up, will operate on a multi-disciplinary basis and a number of professional people will be involved. It is important that it has access to all the equipment and personnel that it needs.

Energy Costs

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the effect of energy costs on industry's competitiveness.

Mr. Butcher: On average, energy costs account for 3 per cent. of industrial gross output. The impact of changes in energy costs on competitiveness depends on a variety of factors, including the movement of other costs.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that, until the commission reports, the news on today's tapes that British Gas charges to industrial competitors have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is welcome? Does he further accept that the recent announcement of increases in electricity charges is of considerable concern to industry as it will add £1 billion to its costs?
In future, will the Minister ensure that the priorities of industries have some bearing in these matters? When will the eight detailed questions asked by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry be answered?

Mr. Butcher: I share the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the referral announced at half-past 10 this morning. It is right that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should consider the prices for contract gas supplies, and we look forward to its report. I am aware that energy costs are a controversial matter that is continuously focused upon, in particular by the manufacturing sector. Even after the proposed increases, our prices will be at the lower end of the range of world prices.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposed increases in electricity charges will be a severe disadavantage to British manufacturing industry, especially the chemical industry? Does he realise that in recent years production has increased directly as energy prices


have fallen in real terms? Does he further accept that if the increases are allowed to go through British industry will be placed at a disadvantage compared with its European competitors?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend makes a valid point when she says that some industries, especially the intensive energy users, are significantly affected by movements in energy prices. But, in the generality, the proposed increase will account for no more than one sixth of 1per cent. of industry's costs, and prices for industrial consumers have fallen by more than 15 per cent. in real terms during the past five years.
To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that she will be as pleased as I am that the qualifying industrial consumer scheme, introduced in October 1986, will continue to give intensive users a price reduction averaging 6 per cent.

Mr. Crowther: Does the Minister accept that to talk about generalities of 3 per cent. is no great consolation to the energy-intensive industries, such as steel, coal, aluminium and chemicals, in which energy costs may account for as much as 25 per cent. of production costs? What will the Department do to protect those industries from the enormous electricity price increases that will take effect from next April? Does he accept that Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that British manufacturers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage?

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the second part of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). For the reasons that he cited, we are pleased that the qualifying industrial consumer scheme will continue to help those who have high energy-intensive production processes.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend should not accept the Opposition's statements without reminding us of their record in government. Is it not a fact—[Interruption.]Labour Members do not like it. Is it not fact that, under the Labour Government, electricity prices increased by 112 per cent.? Yet they are complaining about a 3 per cent. increase. Is it not a fact that gas prices increased by 28 per cent. in real terms, yet they have the gall to criticise the Government for increasing prices only modestly?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend speaks with the directness and candour of an ex-miner, and I welcome his comments. His figures are correct. Under the Labour Administration the price increases were almost exactly twice as high as they have been under this Administration.

Mr. Blair: Instead of standing there and supporting the attempt by his colleagues in other Departments to get industry and the consumer to bear the cost of saving the Government's face on their privatisation programme, which is what this is about — the country knows that, even if Conservative Members do not — why will the Minister and his colleagues not fight for British industry in the Cabinet instead of selling it down the river?

Mr. Butcher: For many years we have been defending the interests of the British manufacturing sector, to the extent that our industries are better placed than their international competitors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has introduced policies that will ensure that the Conservative Administration in the

year 2000 will be presiding over an economy that is still underpinned by a cost-effective and efficient energy industry.

Space Spending

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations his Department has received on Britain's space spending.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have received letters from hon. and right hon. Members, space companies, interested organisations and members of the public. I and other Ministers have had several meetings with representatives of the aerospace industry.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not a further symptom of complete despair to learn that the director general of the National Space Centre recently resigned? Is the Minister concerned that it is expected that during next year there will be a reduction of 40 per cent. in contracts related to the industry?

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is bang up to date with events. The former director of the British National Space Centre resigned early in August of this year. Up to that time he had been criticising the way in which the European Space Agency programme had been going increasingly towards grandiose manned space projects, so it cannot have come altogether as a surprise to Mr. Gibson, the gentleman who resigned, that we exercised our option not to join in those projects at the meeting at The Hague.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government have a duty to examine the value for money that we receive from the funds that we put into space research? The European Space Agency's plan to put a French midget into space hardly seems productive.

Mr. Clarke: I have heard comments of that kind that are related to the design of the proposed spacecraft. It is an optional programme, and other countries appear to have decided to go to the next phase of developing a spaceship that does not seem to have adequate scientific or technological advantages for us. We put our money in other aspects of space work. As a country we invest £4·5 billion in scientific and technological investments of one type or another.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor nevertheless accept that, since his announcement that we will not support the next phase of the ESA programme, there has been genuine concern amongst the hundreds of companies in Britain that are involved in the space programme that the consequences of that decision will be to cut them off from valuable future orders? Given that there is a three-month period in which the decision can be reviewed, will the Minister listen to the representations that are made to him? I accept that the criticisms that he has made of the programme may be valid, but we should be arguing within the programme rather than hurling abuse from outside it.

Mr. Clarke: Most of the representations that are reaching us come from companies that hope to participate in contracts using the money that the Government were putting in. We do not put money in merely to hand it on to a British company. A project must be evaluated in terms of its long-term potential to the economy as a whole, to


see whether sufficient technological and scientific advantages will flow from it to people other than the companies that are directly concerned. We are receiving representations from companies and I am having meetings with several of them. If they can satisfy me that there is some valid national interest to be had from taking part in parts of the space industry, we shall of course do so.

Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that, now that we are not providing extra funds for the ESA, extra money will be found from Government sources for the continuation of the HOTOL project?

Mr. Clarke: I have had yet another meeting to discuss the HOTOL project with British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. We must look for other international collaborators and see what the next step is if we are to continue to evaluate the project. This is a long-term matter, and it will have to be considered carefully once we have found what other industrial and governmental partners we might be able to collect for it.

Mr. Stott: I am sure that the Minister now realises that his decision to do nothing has presented us with the worst possible scenario. Will he tell us what he will do with the 300 firms that are now investing their own private money in space research and related activities? How does he see that money being used in the future? Are the Government expecting the private sector to make up the gap between what the Government would normally put in and the position now, and if so, what mechanism do the Government propose to use to ensure that those private funds are put into the programme?

Mr. Clarke: We are already spending more than £100 million each year on our space programme, which is not doing nothing, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. We have declined to spend £200 million a year on a project to put Europeans—probably Frenchmen—into orbit by the year 2000. That does not have adequate advantages. We are now examining what other projects might be of industrial advantage to us, and what participation the private sector is prepared to contemplate to obtain commercial advantages for itself. Those discussions are continuing.

Departmental Budget

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the main priorities for his Department's budget for 1987–88.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The main priorities for my Departmenfs budget in 1987–88 were set out in the last public expenditure White Paper and were reflected in the Supply Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for 1987–88. All of these have been presented to Parliament.

Mr. Douglas: May we have some assurance from the Minister that these priorities are set against the real needs of the United Kingdom as a whole? May we have an assurance that there will be a review of regional policy, because, while we might expect work to be done in the inner cities, there is a great deal of work needed to correct the imbalance between the north and the south of the United Kingdom? Aid needs to be given to mining areas, such as my own area in Fife, that have been in decline for a long time because of pit closures and because of other aspects of the recession.

Mr. Clarke: I can certainly give the assurance that our increased budget will be devoted to the priorities of the United Kingdom as a whole and to all its industry and commerce. We are reviewing the objectives and policies of our Department and will give a detailed statement on that in due course. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not our intention to reduce the expenditure that we incur in the assisted areas either north or south of the border.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the administration of regional funds in the assisted area of Corby has been an outstanding success, and that the lessons to be learnt from that could be applied to other assisted areas in which aid should be concentrated in future?

Mr. Clarke: We take great encouragement from what has occurred in Corby, where the local community has taken advantage of what is on offer and of the state of the British economy to establish a great deal of new employment and a new economic base for the town. To a certain extent the same thing has happened in Consett, Scunthorpe and other places hit by steel closures. Obviously, that is the kind of thing that we all want to see in all parts of the country that have been most adversely affected in the last 10 years by rapid industrial change.

Mr. Radice: Can the Minister tell the House when the Government will publish their review of regional policy?

Mr. Clarke: As I said, we are reviewing the policies of our entire Department. I have no doubt that some time next year we shall come forward with our conclusions.

Motor Cars

Mr. Curry: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the United Kingdom motor car market was taken by British-made cars in the first eight months of the current year; and how this compares with the last three years' performance of the United Kingdom motor industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): British-made cars took 49 per cent. of the United Kingdom car market in the first eight months of this year, compared with 43,41 and 43 per cent. for the corresponding period of the previous three years.

Mr. Curry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Rover Group has fully shared in this progress and that he will therefore be reinforced in his determination to privatise that company as soon as practicable?

Mr. Atkins: I am as encouraged as is my hon. Friend by the news that Austin-Rover's total sales at home and abroad in the first half of this year increased by nearly 3 per cent. over the same period in 1986. Together with a 15 per cent. increase in export sales, that is particularly welcome and, clearly, will certainly not harm the prospects of the Austin-Rover Group when it comes to privatisation.

Mr. Hoyle: Conservative Members are fond of quoting statistics about the Labour Government. Does the Minister not know that in 1979 foreign imports accounted for only 38 per cent.? This year they are accounting for 50 per cent. and in September United Kingdom car sales were down by 15 per cent. How can this be a success story?

Mr. Atkins: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the penetration of foreign vehicles into Britain has declined in


recent months. That is a sign of the impressive performance by the British car industry and by the component industry, which is so important to it.

Sir Ian Lloyd: In view of the complex interdependence of the modern motor car industry, which I am sure my hon. Friend understands only too well, do the terms "British made" and "Foreign made" have any real significance, and what does the term "British made" mean today?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is as informed on these matters as I am—[Interruption.]—and he makes a good point about the country of origin of cars. Certainly we have noticed in recent months and years a reduction in foreign penetration. As I said, we take a continuing interest in making sure that the component sourcing from the United Kingdom is on the increase. We shall continue to do that.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that British Leyland has been rescued from its private enterprise fate-worse-than-death by billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, and that the people of Britain would find it extremely offensive if, after having rescued this firm, it is slimmed down yet again and sold off? Is it not the truth that British Leyland is barely holding its market share and that, with only about 18 per cent. of the United Kingdom market, it cannot survive?

Mr. Atkins: Many hon. Members will recognise that there has been a great improvement in the performance of the Rover Group, partly as a result of the vast sums of taxpayers' money that have been put into the company. All hon. Members recognise that that success story should be told worldwide. That does not necessarily mean, however, that all hon. Members would agree with the hon. Gentleman in saying that we should not return the company to the private sector as soon as practicable.

Textile Industry

Mr. Waller: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received about the impact of United States protectionist measures on the British textile industry.

Mr. Alan Clark: My colleagues and I have received a number of representations about the United States Textile and Apparel Trade Bill currently before Congress. The Government have repeatedly made clear their concern about this proposed Bill, and the European Community has warned that it will respond to any restrictive United States measures in accordance with its rights under the GATT.

Mr. Waller: If the American Trade Bill is enacted, would it not heighten international trade tensions and undermine the whole progress of the GATT and multilateral negotiations? Will my hon. Friend therefore emphasise the fact that if the measure is passed the Government and the European Community as a whole will not hesitate to act with firmness to ensure that the diversion of trade does not harm our industry?

Mr. Clark: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. This would be an acutely damaging measure if passed. We and the European Commission have repeatedly made our views clear on that. My right hon. and learned Friend and I saw the United States trade representative Clayton Yeutter only last week and repeated our concerns to him.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister and his colleagues start to speak out on this issue rather than whisper in dark corners? This has been a very important issue for the textile industry for a long time and we hear too little from Ministers protecting our textile industry.

Mr. Clark: I have heard the House of Commons called a number of things in recent weeks, but a "dark corner" has not been one of them. The negotiations would have to be conducted by the European Commission. At present the Bill has not been passed by Congress and we are lobbying very strongly in Washington to ensure that it will not be passed. It is a matter of judgment whether national agitation at this time would be likely to inflame or moderate Congressional attitudes.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that protectionism measures implemented by the United States of America would be particularly damaging to the textile and allied industries, many of which are located not only in inner-city areas but in other areas where there are currently economic problems? Such a measure would reduce investment in those industries and have a direct impact on employment in those areas. Will he therefore take this matter—as hon. Members on both sides of the House are urging — very seriously and ensure that the diversion of trade which could result will not have an unfair impact on this country?

Mr. Clark: I am glad of the opportunity that my hon. Friend gives me to repeat the very serious concern with which we view this prospect. As my hon. Friend is a powerful advocate in this area, he knows only too well that the multi-fibre arrangement provides a skeletal structure, which allows us to safeguard our industries. Essentially, the defence must be mounted through the GATT by the European Commission. The Commission is minded to do that in the strongest possible manner.

Mr. Haynes: By the way, happy birthday, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that I recognise the work that he put in during the last renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement? However, will he now get stuck into the Yanks and stop the American imports, in the interests of the British textile industry, especially in my constituency?

Mr. Clark: The problem with protectionist measures is that they are directed against our exports. I appreciate the tribute paid to me by the hon. Gentleman, but if he has a particular problem with imports from the United States I will see what I can do if he draws it to my attention.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures for the productivity of manufacturing industry; and what comparable figures he has on the recent performance of the United Kingdom's major competitors.

Mr. Butcher: In the year to the third quarter of 1987 productivity in manufacturing industry, as measured by output per man, increased by 6·9 per cent. In the year to the second quarter of 1987, the most recent period for which international comparisons are available, productivity in manufacturing industry increased by 6·5 per cent. in the


United Kingdom. This was the fastest increase achieved by any of the major seven industrialised countries and com-pares with an average increase for the major seven countries of 2·7percent.

Mr. Cran: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that if he checks the record he will find that under the last Labour Government the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the productivity league of all the industrial countries? Does he agree that the future competitiveness of British industry and British manufacturing vitally depends upon individual British companies maintaining control of unit labour costs, which under the last Labour Government went through the roof?

Mr. Butcher: The United Kingdom's average growth rate was only l½ per cent. between 1970 and 1980. In that period we were at the bottom of the productivity league of major industrialised nations. That contrasts with this decade in which the average growth rate has been over 5 per cent. and we have been at the top of the league. In regard to costs, of course we have to maintain our healthy obsession with unit wage costs and all unit costs. If we can keep that going until well into the 1990s, we shall have a very favourable outlook indeed.

Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister encourage industry to plough back the improvement in productivity into investment in manufacturing, which is still showing a decline in areas such as the north? Investment needs to be — [Interruption.]I am only going on last month's figures. Investment in manufacturing needs to be increased, so that areas such as the north can benefit from increased investment and increased growth, so that we may put the hundreds of thousands of people who are still out of work back to work.

Mr. Butcher: As a northern Member, I hope that the hon. Lady will have drawn much comfort from the fact that the manufacturing sector is now spearheading our economic growth. It is growing faster than the general level of the economy.

Mr. Tim Smith: Are not the encouraging figures that my hon. Friend has given to the House further evidence that the enterprise culture is well established in many parts of the United Kingdom? Will my hon. Friend make it his overriding objective——

Mr. Cryer: Two million jobs have gone.

Mr. Smith: Shut up.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman does not like the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions are to the Minister, not to the Bench below the Gangway.

Mr. Smith: Will my hon. Friend make it his overriding policy objective to ensure that the enterprise culture is established throughout the United Kingdom? We have the conditions for further investment, further productivity growth and more jobs.

Mr. Butcher: I can understand the antagonism of some Opposition Members towards the enterprise culture, because the arrival of the enterprise culture in some of their constituencies could well mean that they will lose their seats to the Conservative party. In regard to the sedentary question——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please do not answer sedentary questions.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that increased productivity and increased investment frequently lead to fewer jobs in industries such as the textile industry? If more jobs are to be created, which I assume we all desire, there has to be a buoyant market for the products, so that their improved competitiveness can result in increased sales. If the United States puts on an embargo on our goods, is it not true that goods intended to be imported into the United States from many other countries will be diverted to Britain? That will result in the market here being less buoyant. There will be fewer jobs and the investment in productivity will have been for nothing.

Mr. Butcher: To take the last question first, it confirms that we are right to be concerned to see the continuation of the open trading market internationally. That is a prime objective of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On productivity and job loss, productivity gains are the friends and precursors of increased employment, as the Japanese experience demonstrates. I hope that we shall no longer be sidetracked by the myth that increasing productivity equals job losses. It means gains in income to United Kingdom plc and therefore gains in jobs.

Fylde Coast Area

Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will undertake a review of the impact on the Fylde coast area resulting from the removal of assisted area status.

Mr. Atkins: No, Sir.

Mr. Jack: Because of my hon. Friend's deep knowledge, care and concern for the affairs of Lancashire, I am sure he will realise that I and the other hon. Members serving the Fylde coast area are still deeply concerned about the level of unemployment. Does he agree that the key to reducing that is the starting of the second phase of the Peel industrial estate? The problems relating to English Industrial Estates in that venture mean that progress has been non-existent. Can his Department offer any hope of further options or ideas to enable industrial development to start in that area?

Mr. Atkins: As my hon. Friend is fully aware, as a fellow Lancashire Member I understand the problems of that part of my hon. Friend's constituency. I have written to him making it clear that any involvement of English Industrial Estates must be dependent upon its being able to recover its costs. Since that letter I have been able to explore the possibility of further options and discuss them with my hon. Friend. If he cares to come to see me I am sure that we can find a way out of the problem.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Fylde coast regularly has the highest unemployment in Lancashire? While I am grateful for what he has just said about the Peel industrial estate, will he consider, rather than diverting the land to retail industries — which would be contrary to the structure plan and contrary to policies of the Department of the Environment — whether it might be appropriate to encourage English Industrial Estates to divest itself of that part of the estate that has been partly developed so that it can be further developed by other companies?

Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend, as ever, represents the interest of his constituents extremely well. His suggestion is one of the options that we shall consider.

National Newspapers (Competition)

Mr. Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received following the acquisition of a 14·7 per cent. stake in the Pearson group by News International; and if he will make a statement on competition policy for national newspapers.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Eight letters have been received by my Department, including one from the hon. Gentleman. Major newspaper mergers are regulated by special provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1973, and we shall rigorously examine all applications for consent which are put to us.

Mr. Bruce: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is real anxiety among people working in the Financial Timesat the implications of the acquisition of a 14·7 per cent. stake in the parent corporation by Rupert Murdoch's company? Does he accept that the increasing concentration of ownership of the British national press has reached a level which cannot be in the best interests of the freedom of the press? Is it not time the Government came forward with a review of the right way to deal with competition and ensure that we have a free national press?

Mr. Clarke: The matter would come to a head only if any attempt were made to acquire a controlling interest in the newspaper and in the group, which would trigger the provisions of the Fair Trading Act. That would involve the ability to own or control about 25 per cent. of the votes cast at a general meeting of the company. If that were to happen, the special newspaper provisions of the Fair Trading Act would come into play. My right hon. and noble Friend has already indicated that we are seeking to improve the workings of that part of the Act. We are asking the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report back more quickly when references are made, and we are looking at ways in which this part of the Act can be made to work more effectively.

Mr. Aitken: While recognising that Mr. Murdoch's description of himself as a friendly investor in the Financial Timesgives a new and bloodcurdling meaning to that phrase, in all seriousness may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend accepts that there is an important public interest dimension to this which demands a firm assurance from the Government? Will my right hon. and learned Friend promise the House that in the event of Mr. Murdoch making a takeover bid for the Financial Times,the necessary Government consent under the Fair Trading Act will be debated in the House before a final ministerial decision is made, and not afterwards, as happened in such a shameful way in the cases of Today, The Sunday Timesand The Times?We must have decisions taken here first.

Mr. Clarke: I recognise that my hon. Friend is always a friendly questioner on the subject of this and similar acquisitions. I am being reasonably forthcoming on hypothetical questions which would arise only if Mr. Murdoch sought to exercise control over this newspaper. The Fair Trading Act 1973 covers that situation. I understand what the views of hon. Members on both sides

of the House will be if this occurs and I assure my hon: Friend that we shall apply the Act as it is intended to be applied.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister recall the takeover of the Todaynewspaper earlier this year, which the Government meekly accepted, like lambs? This gave Mr. Murdoch 35 per cent. control over the popular press in this country. The triumvirate of Maxwell, Murdoch and Stevens controls over 80 per cent. of the popular press. Two hundred weeklies come under the control of Mr. Murdoch. Is this not a fearful control over ideas, opinions and attitudes? Should it not be prevented, and should the Government not operate a proper anti-monopoly policy?

Mr. Clarke: The special provisions of the Act do not apply, and were never intended to apply, where there is financial urgency. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers there was an imminent threat of the newspaper closing. It had only a small circulation. I cannot answer hypothetical questions, but the hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether that situation could apply to any attempted acquisition of the Financial Times.It is on that basis that we shall decide whether the Fair Trading Act applies and whether reference should be made to the MMC. No application for consent has been made, so there is a limit to how forthcoming I can be.

Mr. Dykes: Although I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which received great support from both sides of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a big difference between a minority stake, which is equivalent to raising money or gaining financial support, or a rights issue, and seeking to intervene in the affairs of a newspaper? Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to ensure that the Financial Times,a masterpiece of objectivity and balance, remains truly independent?

Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the Financial Times,which is one of this country's strongest journals and has a great international reputation. We shall have a duty to address the Act if anyone attempts to acquire a controlling interest. My hon. Friend can rely on Ministers to take their duties seriously if such an event occurs.

Leicester

Mr. Janner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for providing increased support for the traditional industries of Leicester.

Mr. Atkins: My right hon. and noble Friend and I are looking at the whole range of the Departmenfs policies to ensure that they are effectively targeted on the areas and on the people that most need assistance.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister admitting that the traditional industries of Leicester and cities like it are in decline? Is he aware that the Government's policies of removing protection from workers and reducing the number of factory inspectors has led to intolerable sweatshop conditions, and that even the Government are investigating this? When will they provide the support that these industries need to bring back prosperity to a city which, when they came to power, was the second wealthiest in Europe and today is suffering greatly from unemployment and misery?

Mr. Atkins: I recently opened an exhibition of the wool and knitting industries, of which there are many representatives in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. They spoke in glowing terms about the success of their traditional industries and felt that the serious problems facing them could be overcome with the continued support of the Government both at home and abroad.

National Consumer Council

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet the National Consumer Council.

Mr. Maude: I shall be meeting the National Consumer Council on 1March 1988.

Mr. Fatchett: Perhaps the Minister could bring that date forward and take the opportunity to discuss with the NCC its recent report on security risks and personal loans, which illustrates one of the worst characteristics of the so-called enterprise culture. Is the Minister aware that that report showed the use of deliberately deceitful advertising

on loans and high brokerage charges? It also showed that many people, often in extremely difficult financial circumstances, were putting their own homes at risk because of the nature of this loan business. Is it not about time that the Government acted against those sharks?

Mr. Maude: We are already consulting on proposals to change advertisement regulations and will be issuing revised regulations soon after further consultations. Those regulations will require credit-granters to make it clear in the advertisements that if a secured loan is being offered the borrower's home is placed at risk. It is right that that. should be done. However, that does not remove the burden that must lie with anyone seeking credit to look carefully at the terms of the loan that he is seeking and to shop around to get the best possible deal.

Mr. Gow: What injury would be done to the progress of mankind if the National Consumer Council were to be abolished?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend has asked a fascinating hypothetical question to which I will not venture an answer at this stage.

Primary Health Care

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the Governments plans for improving the primary health care services. Those plans are set out in the White Paper entitled "Promoting Better Health", which has been published today. Copies are available from the Vote Office.
The primary care services — those provided outside hospitals by family doctors, dentists, pharmacists, opticians, community nurses and others — account for nine tenths of all patient contacts with the National Health Service. They cost over £5,000 million a year.
In 1986 the Government set out their proposals for improving primary care. They attracted over 2,000 written comments and were the subject of public consultation meetings chaired by Ministers in different parts of the country. We are grateful to all those who commented, and to the Social Services Committee of this House for its constructive report published earlier this year. The White Paper includes a detailed response to that report.
The consultations showed a wide measure of support for the Government proposals, in particular for placing the promotion of better health at the centre of the stage. The White Paper shows clearly the amount of preventable disease in this country, and it contains many proposals for tackling this problem. Those include the setting of targets for family doctors to achieve higher levels of vaccination, immunisation and cervical cytology screening; more health promotion sessions in general practice; a greater role in health education for pharmacists; regular health checks for particular groups, such as the under-fives and elderly people; a new contract for dentists which will encourage prevention; an extension of the primary care team to include chiropodists, physiotherapists and others and action to see that the skills of community nurses are better used, in connection with which we are issuing today a circular to English health authorities advising on the steps to be taken following the Cumberlege report on community nursing.
To achieve those aims we shall be making general practitioners' contracts more sensitive to actual performance and will look to family practitioner committees to monitor more vigorously the contracts they have with family doctors. The White Paper also emphasises the needs of the consumer of primary care services. In particular, it sets out ways of giving people much more information with which to choose their practitioner and of making it easier for people to change doctor. It also provides improvements in complaints procedures.
The various measures that the White Paper sets out — which include also compulsory retirement for the older doctors and dentists and more effective improvement of primary care premises — will affect all parts of the country. We expect them to bring particular benefits to inner cities and other deprived areas. In addition, the White Paper sets out the Governments intentions for improvements specific to such areas, for example by paying particular attention to their dental, pharmaceutical and community nursing services.
All primary care professionals have a part to play in the improvements we seek, and the White Paper describes our intentions for each part of the service. The Government

have already made provision for a large increase in expenditure on the family practitioner services, and are prepared to invest substantially more on top of that. In many cases, the actual amount will depend on the outcome of the negotiations that will now take place with each of the practitioner professions. The White Paper makes clear our intention to proceed quickly with the introduction of blood glucose testing strips for diabetics, which I believe will be widely welcomed in the House.
Expenditure on family practitioner services has already risen by £1·5 billion, or 43 per cent. in real terms, since 1978–79. That is reflected, for example, in the increase of nearly 4,000 to over 30,000 in the number of general practitioners, and a consequent fall from over 2,200 to fewer than 2,000 in the average number of patients on each doctor's list. To achieve the strategic development set out in the White Paper will mean giving still greater priority to these services as a whole, and we have therefore thought it right also to look carefully at priorities within them. We have concluded that it is reasonable to secure some additional resources for development by asking those who can afford it to pay for sight tests and to meet somewhat more of the overall cost of dental care, through a system of proportional charges extending also to examination costs, for which at present no charge is made. The proportional charge system will be simpler, and will relate patient charges more directly to the costs of the particular treatment. It will benefit regular attenders who look after their teeth, some of whom will have no increase or may even pay a little less. Current exemptions from dental charges will, of course, continue for children, adults on low income, expectant and nursing mothers and certain other groups. NHS sight tests will remain free for children, those on low income, the blind and partially sighted and other specified categories.
Existing plans already provide for additional expenditure by 1990–91 of some £570 million in real terms. That will be further increased by the substantial extra resources that the Government will make available to finance the improvements that I have described today. Towards the additional expenditure as a whole, the extra payments which people will make towards dental care and sight testing will contribute some £170 million by 1990–91.
The necessary legislative provisions, together with other health measures, are contained in a Bill which will also be published today. The proposals in the White Paper and the Bill will generally apply throughout the United Kingdom, but my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, will be considering the ways in which certain of our proposals will require to be adapted to the particular circumstances of those countries.
Our proposals will enable people to make more informed choices of practitioner, will give them access to higher quality services and, above all, will place the greatest emphasis on preventing illness and promoting positive good health. I believe that it is a strategy that will be widely welcomed and supported.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister praised the constructive report of the Select Committee. I would find his flattery more sincere if in the past half hour I had been able to find a single case in which he accepted a single recommendation from the Select Committee in which it differed from the consultative document.
Why, in particular, has the Minister rejected the unanimous recommendation that he re-examine the integration of the family practitioner committees that run the GPs with the district health authorities that supply the community nurses with whom they are supposed to work? What is the point of expressing pious hopes that health professionals will work together as a team, when he has decided to keep the administrators playing in two separate teams? If he seriously expects family practitioner committees to monitor "more vigorously" the quality of primary care, why is his Department choosing this year to cut their administrative budgets, and why have the committees been told to expect more staff cuts next year? Is the Minister aware that they are expected to shed 600 posts by next March, that Birmingham has suspended all planning functions, that East Sussex has stopped monitoring general practitioners' claims, and that Kingston has halted all inspections of GPs' surgeries? How does he expect us to believe that this small, shrinking band of administrators can make a reality of more vigorous monitoring?
The Minister will be aware that his proposals will be judged on how they remedy the most serious failings of primary care in the inner cities, where large numbers of the elderly, the unemployed and the homeless place special demands upon it. Will he acknowledge that those pressures are being increased month by month by the persistent closure of accident and emergency units, 15 of which have closed in London alone? How will those pressures be helped by payment by performance, which may draw more GPs away from the cities to areas such as Braintree, where it may well be easier for them to hit his targets?
How does the Minister imagine that it will help the chronic problem of crowded, crumbling surgeries in the inner cities to privatise the General Practice Finance Corporation, a proposal to which he did not refer but which is to be found in his White Paper? Is he not aware that that is a rare source of funds for new premises in unfashionable areas where banks will not lend? Why, given the deep public concern about them, does neither his statement nor the White Paper even mention the appalling quality of the deputising services?
Is the Minister further aware that studies suggest that the average consulting time per patient of only six minutes is lower in Britain than almost anywhere else in Europe? Why, then, is he proposing to increase the capitation element to encourage GPs to compete for even longer patient lists? Does he not appreciate that, if he wants to improve the quality of care, he should be encouraging GPs to have shorter lists, not even longer ones?
Finally, the Minister will have anticipated that we unreservedly condemn his proposal to charge for dental examinations and for eyesight tests. Does he recall that in the consultative document there was no reference to charges for eyesight tests and that professional bodies have been unable to comment on the proposal? Even solicitors will still give clients free advice —and will now come cheaper than these NHS service.
How does the Minister imagine that he is encouraging preventive care by discouraging patients from visiting their dentists? Has he forgotten that, when dental charges went up by 25 per cent., the number of fillings fell by 5 million? Is he aware that one in 20 people calling for an eyesight test are referred on for medical examination for conditions

such as glaucoma, which can be arrested if caught early enough? How many of them will be deterred by a tenner a test?
To the extent that today's proposals will oblige GPs to give priority not to their most needed services but to their most profitable ones, we wholly reject them. The Opposition will fight to preserve a Health Service that is publicly funded, publicly run and free to the public at the time they need it.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should take the last two points first and make it clear that in our view the proposed charges for dental examinations and the proportional system, which in some cases will have the effect of reducing treatment charges, are a sensible move towards generating the additional resources that we can then devote to exactly the purposes that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) outlined in his first questions. We wish to have more money to direct to the improvement of primary care in the inner cities. We wish also to develop the role of the family practitioner committees along exactly the same lines that the hon. Gentleman, too, would wish. In the remote likelihood of the hon. Gentleman ever being a Minister, he would have to face up to the need to find the resources to achieve those desirable objectives. We have tried to face up to that need.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the proposal that family practitioner committees and district health authorities should once again be merged. Whatever may be the merits of the arguments that were fought over in 1982 when the present set-up was introduced, I cannot believe that it is in the interests of any part of the Health Service to have yet another administrative upheaval on top of those that it has already been through. However these authorities were organised, it would be essential to have proper co-ordination. In my view, it is right to concentrate on achieving proper co-ordination, and that is what we are seeking to do by many of these proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about capitation fees. I make the simple point that, with a given number of doctors and a given number of patients, it is impossible for lists to become longer on average. Higher capitation fees will give doctors the incentive, among many others that we are proposing, to provide good treatment to their patients so that they will attract patients against a background of wider choice. The core of our proposals on general practitioners is to change the remuneration system to give greater incentives to those who provide the things that I outlined at the beginning of my statement —more screening programmes, more health promotion sessions and systematic surveillance of the health needs of under-fives and the very elderly. We all wish to see those things brought about.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that the eye test is a screening procedure and that many serious illnesses such as diabetes, glaucoma and cancer can be detected at an early stage? Therefore, does he really think that it would be cost effective to deter people from seeking eye tests because they would have to pay £10? Any person in some difficulty with their sight might well be told, on going to see their doctor, to have their eyes tested and that it would cost £10 at an optician but nothing at a hospital. The hospital eye service is already under great strain. Therefore, does it make sense to direct more people to have their eyes tested at hospitals instead of at opticians?

Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that I respect my hon. Friend's views on those matters because of her direct knowledge of them and the views that she expressed when the voucher system was introduced some three or four years ago. The fears that were expressed about the introduction of the voucher system have proved unfounded. It has greatly extended competition, choice and consumer satisfaction. I believe that her fears about this further development will also prove unfounded.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We do not welcome the statement. It is probably one of the most deterrent things that we have heard. Prevention is what we need, but that is not what we are getting. Charging for eye testing and the inspection of teeth will not assist prevention, as it will not be possible to detect diseases such as cancer if eyes are not tested. It will bring about a medical upheaval. Will pressure from drug companies reflect the advice given by pharmacists to their patients?

Mr. Newton: I see no reason to suppose that that latter fear has anything to do with what we are proposing. We have been strongly pressed by pharmacists, who are an important part of the primary health care professions, to help them extend their role in advising people about health matters and, not least, health education. They constitute a large range of outlets, with many people going to them frequently, where such information can be made available. We think that it is a sensible use of resources to encourage pharmacists to use that asset in the interests of health education generally.

Sir David Price: My hon. Friend said that it was his intention that general practitioners' contracts should be more sensitive to performance. Will this enable such GPs to do more preventive medicine or more diagnostics? It is my view that a great deal more diagnosis should be done in general practice, thus relieving out-patient departments. Does he also recognise that this must mean smaller patient lists for such GPs?

Mr. Newton: It may well be that that will lead to reduced patient lists. I said in my statement that they have fallen substantially during the past seven or eight years. The details of the new arrangements will clearly have to be negotiated with the professions, but the basic answer to my hon. Friend's question is that we shall be aiming through the new remuneration system to encourage the sort of things to which he rightly attaches importance.

Mr. Barry Jones: Even at this stage, will the Minister think again about his decision to charge for eyesight tests and dental examinations? Does it not fly in the face of his policies on health education? Does he not see it as a colossal mistake?

Mr. Newton: No, I do not think that it does. The proposed charges contribute to our capacity to devote substantial additional resources to the promotion of good health and to the sort of measures outlined in the White Paper, which are directly related to improving the health of the nation. That is the basis on which the proposals have been put forward.

Mr. Roger Sims: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the document he has produced, which from what he says includes a large number of items to improve the health of the community. I thank him and our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for the enormous amount of time and trouble they

put into consulting all sorts of people on the contents of the Green Paper before the present proposals were brought out.
My hon. Friend will be aware that nurses are particularly anxious to play a larger role in community health care and I wonder whether my hon. Friend will enlarge a little on the remarks in his statement referring to nurses. Has there been any development on the suggestions in the Green Paper that pharmacists may play a larger role, particularly in visiting patients for whom they have prescribed preparations?

Mr. Newton: In relation to pharmacists and still more in relation to the optical services, we are looking at ways to pay practitioners to make domiciliary visits to the housebound, which is undoubtedly a gap in present facilities. That is illustrative of the sort of things we can do with the extra resources.
On the matter of nurses, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Cumberlege report recommended the development of so-called neighbourhood nursing services. We believe that that needs to be actively examined around the country. We do not believe that we can lay down a blueprint for all areas regardless of their differing conditions, but there are already some good examples in practice that we believe other authorities could build on. We are anxious to improve the quality of the work done by nurses in general practitioners' practices. We are proposing to reimburse general practitioners directly for the training of practice nurses, which I think will be widely welcomed.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: How will the proposals in the paper ensure an improvement in the promotion of good mental health?

Mr. Newton: In the same way as they will seek to promote other forms of health —physical health. For example, one of the things for which we shall be able directly to reimburse general practitioners but for which we cannot at the moment, is the employment, alongside chiropodists, physiotherapists and other supporting staff, of staff who can provide counselling services at general practices. That has been pressed for many times and is directly related to the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, particularly the points on more accountability for general practitioners. Does he think that it is about time that consultants were more accountable and that their contracts should be with district health authorities rather than regional health authorities?

Mr. Newton: I think that I have covered enough delicate issues in my statement without going into that one.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, may I say that we do not like the underpinning philosophy of the White Paper, since it seems that the low income groups, which are often the most vulnerable in health conditions, are less likely to take up opportunities for testing if they have to pay?
May I pursue the Minister on the issue of cervical cytology? It is not clear within the White Paper whether the call and recall service will be part of the main contract.


Since that is one illness that could be prevented by effective screening, can he give us an assurance that that will be the case?

Mr. Newton: I should make it clear that all existing exemptions from charges continue to apply under the system that I have proposed, so I do not think that low-income people will be affected. As to cervical cytology screening, around the country we have set targets for the introduction of call and recall programmes. One matter about which I feel particularly strongly, as does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, is that we must ensure that the response of women to being called or recalled is raised, which is just as important as having the system in place. That is what we shall be encouraging general practitioners to help to bring about.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree with the increasing demand on the Health Service through demographic and technological factors, that it is high time that primary health care provision was properly scrutinised? The right way to provide primary health care is by being effective, efficient and responsive to the demand of consumers and, at last, by ensuring that general practitioners are more cost-conscious. There has been a phenomenal increase in spending in family practitioner services. Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for the recognition that he is giving other members of the primary health team —chiropodists, physiotherapists and district nurses?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the support that she has expressed.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Sam Galbraith.

An Hon. Member: A consultant.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: May I echo the call of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) for consultants to be made accountable? I welcome certain parts of the White Paper, particularly that with regard to a retirement age of 70, and I hope that it is a prelude to the introduction of retirement at 65. I welcome the part of the report concerning more information for patients. This is not advertising; more information will benefit patients. However, I am sorry that the Minister is going the wrong way on the capitation fee. What he is proposing will lead to larger practices, when even general practitioners are asking for smaller ones. The Minister should have taken the opportunity to reduce the capitation fee below £1,700. Will any items for service payments be cash-limited? Will they be cash-limited in general, or will each item of service within that be cash-limited? Will such things as cervical cytology smears or tests for blood examinations be cash-limited?

Mr. Newton: I express my gratitude for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments —[AN HON. MEMBER: "
About consultants?"] I shall leave consultants out of the matter for the moment, but I understand the direct interest of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in these matters. The capitation fee issue should be considered alongside the introduction of specific incentives for the sort of particular purposes that I have outlined. There is no question of cash-limiting the tests that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. With regard to the sums that we shall make available for the further improvement of practice premises and for the additional employment of supporting staff of various kinds, we shall

make specific sums available to family practitioner committees; they can decide what projects to support, and develop what is called their more "pro-active role" to encourage good services in their area.

Dr. Alan Glyn: If my hon. Friend is to put a greater strain on general practitioners and increase their primary services, is he satisfied that they will be given sufficient equipment to carry that out?

Mr. Newton: Part of the purpose of the exercise is to achieve precisely that. I should make it clear that we are not seeking to increase the strain on general practitioners generally; we are seeking to increase the rewards of those who are already taking the strain and making a lot of effort, and to encourage those who are not doing that to do so.

Mr. Norman Hogg: ; Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will convey to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the need for a detailed statement on the implications of the statement and the White Paper for the National Health Service in Scotland, with particular reference to general practitioner services in highland and remote areas, where doctors are having to work in difficult circumstances? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to comment on the ophthalmic and dental charges, which will have a detrimental effect on the socially disadvantaged in urban and rural Scotland?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present—[Interruption.] I am sure that in an appropriate way my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will want to make available any further information about the application of these proposals to Scotland. We all seek to discuss with the professions how we may give better support to doctors who are virtually forced to practise on their own in isolated rural areas. Clearly, that will be of even greater importance in Scotland than in many parts of England.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my hon. Friend believe that the measures that he has announced today will encourage more people to seek examination of their sight, which also covers incipient glaucoma and conditions like it, and have their teeth examined, or does he believe that the measures will discourage them? Will my hon. Friend say why he believes that the obvious discouragement to both will be beneficial to health? Does he not realise that there are many people on what are, by any standards, very low incomes who are above the threshold for free access to these facilities?

Mr. Newton: I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that similar fears expressed about earlier changes have proved unfounded. It will be open to opticians to offer free sight tests, as they may wish to do in connection with their general business of selling spectacles, even though they will not be able formally to tie patients to buy spectacles from the same place. The advantages and forces of competition will mean that these proposals will not have the effect that my hon. Friend fears.

Mr. Paul Flynn: In response to a moving letter from a constituent who lost her sight because of detectable glaucoma that was not detected in the early stages, I tabled a question to the Department asking for


an extension of eye tests to the plotting of visual fields, which would be a more sophisticated and more effective technique. Is the Minister aware that the International Glaucoma Association thinks that 150,000 people already suffer from glaucoma which has not been detected? Although the statement contains many items of value, the decision to withdraw free eye tests will be seen as an act of crass, wasteful, cruel stupidity.

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's views. I have already made it clear that I do not agree with him. I hope that I understood the first part of his question aright. I must point out that there is nothing in our proposals to restrict what is done in the course of an eye test.

Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although many Conservative Members welcome any proposals to improve prevention, service and the range of choice, we must be sure that there will not be items of payment for services that encourage unnecessary activity, visits or referrals? The accent must be on a better deal and more choice for the patient.

Mr. Newton: Yes, and among other things we shall seek to ensure that general practitioners have better information about referral rates—for example, by other colleagues in the same area—and we hope that that will assist them in developing sensible practices.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Minister accept that the White Paper is clear evidence of the Government's intention to continue to undermine the National Health Service and to move away from the concepts upon which it was based? Is he aware that testing in that sense is part of preventive medicine? Luckily, I was diagnosed in an eye test as having glaucoma. I am one of probably many thousands of people who have been grateful for the fact that such a test disclosed that illness. Is it not an act of absolute stupidity to end free tests when, in view of public opinion, medicine is following the course of prevention rather than cure?

Mr. Newton: The essential emphasis of the White Paper, as I think I made clear throughout, is on extending the support that we give to preventive health promotion activity by general practitioners and by primary care services generally. The hon. Gentleman's initial remark is, frankly, absurd against the background of a 43 per cent. real increase already on primary care services, a further planned 11 per cent. real increase and the further increases entailed in my statement.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement may have opened up a rift between myself and my daughter, who is a dental surgeon, unless I can tell her this evening when she telephones me that the increased charges for inspection will be spent on dental care in general?

Mr. Newton: I hope that I have made it clear in my statement and answers that we have a number of proposals to improve the standards of dental care and to make some changes in the dentists' contract. We shall certainly seek to promote the standards of primary care generally. I am not in a position to give an undertaking that the money raised in one quarter will be spent only in that quarter and,

indeed, unless it were thought that the existing balance of primary care was perfect in all respects, it would be absurd for me to do so.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Minister agree that, in the light of his emphasis on preventive and community medicine, it would be well worth considering even further the role of health visitors and considering increasing the ratio of health visitors to population from one to every 5,000 to one to every 3,000, so that health visitors can do their jobs much more effectively than they possibly can at present?

Mr. Newton: There has been a valuable increase in the number of health visitors. They are a singularly important part of the nursing profession and of the primary care services. Obviously, one of our objectives in encouraging health authorities to look at the proposals in the Cumberlege report and the circular which we have issued is to encourage the type of development which, in general terms, the hon. Lady wants.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome the proposals to support doctors in rural areas. Will my hon. Friend say a word or two about dispensing by doctors in rural areas?

Mr. Newton: This is another delicate issue which is not greatly covered in the White Paper. We have no plans at present to change the balance of the arrangements for the rural dispensing committee and the new arrangements under the pharmacists' contract instituted last April which seek to arbitrate between the interests of dispensing doctors and those of pharmacists, not least in rural areas.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister really saying that, in the face of all the Chancellor's income tax cuts and all the boasting about how borrowing has been reduced almost to nothing, the only way that he can finance these welcome changes to primary care and preventive medicine is by attacking the services that are the backbone of preventive medicine? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite all the high-faluting nonsense at the start of his statement, people in my constituency cannot get a simple flu vaccine, because supplies are not available, it seems, anywhere in the country, and they have to put down their names for the next year?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—yesterday gave a first-class answer on flu vacci ne, so I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a Member who served on the Select Committee which produced this report, may I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. It takes much more account of the Select Committee's views than the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said it does. If our general practitioner service, which is the finest in the world, requires more resources to carry out the important task that is set for it, and if the new charges on certain services will reduce the number of people coming forward for those services, will my hon. Friend increase resources for general practitioners and review the charges imposed on certain services?

Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought in the first part of his question


about extra resources for general practitioners. Indeed, that is one of the main aims of the proposals. However, I would be hesitant about giving him any assurance on the second part of his question because I simply do not accept the fears that have been expressed.

Mr. Dave Nellist: What is there in the White Paper to deal with that most primary of health care—the treatment of chronically sick babies? I have no doubt that the Minister and the House will join me in welcoming the news of about an hour ago that this afternoon Philip and Diane Barber will see the operation performed on David, their six-week-old son. The Barbers are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). What is in the White Paper for the 34 other babies waiting for heart operations around the country? What is in the White Paper to answer the words of Dr. Eric Silove, the consultant paediatric cardiologist at Birmingham children's hospital, who revealed this morning that in the past four days a baby has died because of a lack of operating theatre staff? If the Minister can increase charges for specs and teeth, why can he not do anything about intensive care staff and get these operations moving?

Mr. Newton: As with yesterday afternoon, I shall not seek to respond to the hon. Gentleman in the spirit of his question. I shall simply say that I, too, am delighted that Baby Barber is having his operation this afternoon. I understand that the operation started at 2.30 pm. I very much hope that it is successful and that the baby's parents will have their anxiety relieved.

Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and on the White Paper. Those of my constituents who are employed in the pharmaceutical industry will welcome the statement that the Government are to encourage
the maintenance and development of a strong and efficient pharmaceutical industry in the UK
and that
the Government have no plans at present to extend the selected list scheme into other therapeutic areas or to introduce compulsory generic prescribing.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, from the White Paper.
Does the Minister intend to stimulate still further investment into research and development and manufacture—particularly research into cures for diseases such as AIDS.

Mr. Newton: The basis of the relatively new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and of the other steps taken is precisely to encourage a strong research-based pharmaceutical industry in this country. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and I hope that he in turn will encourage those with whom he is in touch to co-operate with us on other ways of ensuring economic and effective prescribing.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call those hon. Members who have been rising and who listened to the statement. However, I would ask for brief questions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have two questions of fact on sight testing. In answer to the informed and reasonable question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), the Minister said that there was satisfaction in relation to consumer vouchers. What evidence does he have for that? Secondly, on paragraph 28

of the White Paper dealing with domiciliary sight testing, what extra monetary resources are likely to be available? Having received a cryogenic reception in the House on the sight testing proposals, should not the Minister go back to Alexander Fleming house and to his Cabinet colleagues and say, "The House of Commons is deeply unhappy about this. Think again."?

Mr. Newton: On resources, I have made it clear that we have to negotiate with the professions on many of these matters. Therefore, I cannot name specific sums that will go to any particular purpose. However, we shall want sufficient resources to be made available to provide an effective domiciliary sight testing scheme. On vouchers, when I have visited some of the new spectacle establishments that have grown up around the country, and talked to customers there, I have found them well satisfied with the arrangements.
Let me make it clear that we propose a number of improvements in the voucher scheme. Vouchers will be made available for contact lens purchase, which is not permitted at present. The position of the partially sighted will be given special consideration in relation to other voucher groups and the voucher scheme will also be extended to help adults whose spectacles are damaged owing to physical or mental disability. We are making a number of further improvements which I believe will be widely welcomed.

Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement on proportional charges for dental treatment, for which the British Dental Association has been pressing, will be widely welcomed? Can he confirm to the House that the proportional charge that the Government have in mind will be lower because of the phasing-out of the free dental examination? That will encourage people to go to dental practitioners more regularly.

Mr. Newton: They will be lower than they would otherwise have been. I must make it clear that, because of the absurdities in the present system, the effect of proportional charges will vary greatly. Let me give an example. At the moment, for a precious metal bonded crown which costs £68, the patient pays £33, which represents just under half the cost. For a much less good jot)—a synthetic resin jacket—the patient also pays £33, which represents 94 per cent. of the cost. That is ridiculous and, above all, our proposal is more sensible.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that his statement will do enormous damage to dental health and eye care? The evidence for that comes from the White Paper. Paragraph 2.13 says that the Government are to introduce charges for dental examination because of massive improvements in dental health in this country. Is the Minister so stupid that he does not understand that the reason why dental health has improved so massively is that we had free inspections? If we go back to the system of paying for examinations, we shall go back to bad dental health.
On the general practitioner service, the Minister should be aware that the massive difference between his Government and the Labour Government is that under Labour the services were always demand-led, and no other part of the Health Service had to pay for increased costs in the general practitioner service. The Minister's


statement, on the other hand, makes it clear that other parts of the Health Service will pay for the increase in costs in the general practitioner service.

Mr. Newton: On the point about dental charges, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The principal reason for the great improvement in dental health is that the nation and parents have been taking much greater care of the dental health of children. Under the proposals, all dental treatment for children will be as free as it is now.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The provisions of the White Paper are welcome—especially the proposal to set targets so that general practitioner pay is more closely related to performance. Will my hon. Friend say more about the setting of targets, especially for doctors in the deprived inner-city areas?

Mr. Newton: Again, I face the difficulty that we shall need to negotiate with the profession. Therefore, I cannot give my hon. Friend the detailed information that he seeks. I assure him that among the matters to be negotiated will be arrangements to give greater encouragement to general. practitioners to practise in inner-city areas and to give them better premises in which to practise. That is possibly the single most important need that we must consider when improving primary health care. The services are very poor in some of our inner cities.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it the case, as is widely believed throughout the country, that junior Ministers in this benighted Government—particularly in the Department of Health and Social Security—are given special training in the presentation of policies and supportive arguments in which they themselves cannot possibly have any belief?

Mr. Newton: I hardly dare speculate about that. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman intended his remarks as a compliment. I believe that we should all be trained to face up to realities and to find resources to achieve good purposes.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend accept from me, as a diabetic, that his announcement about diabetes will be widely welcomed? Will he also accept from me, as somebody who uses the National Health dental service, that I am not in the least enamoured of his proposals? What proportion of the charge will be retained by the dentist, what proportion will be passed on to the kitty, and will the dentists themselves be remunerated additionally for becoming tax collectors?

Mr. Newton: Dentists will be no more tax collectors than they are now, because there are already very substantial charges. I need hardly say that the remuneration of dentists will need to be negotiated, as ever, with the profession.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister is trying to put on a brave face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) said, the Minister is finding it difficult to justify a self-financing package when he should be arguing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more funds for the Health Service. Will he ensure that, unlike the occasion of the announcement on Scottish homes, his right hon. and

learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the House and makes a statement on the implications for Scotland of the measures in the White Paper?

Mr. Newton: I note again what the hon. Gentleman said about Scotland, and no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend did so too. I see no need to apologise for a statement that provides an additional £600 million for primary care services by 1991, of which a relatively small part will be raised by the measures that I have proposed.

Mr. Chris Butler: I do not suppose that the medical profession will be surprised at losing its perquisite of retiring and then immediately being re-contracted. Can the Minister tell me a little more about the compulsory retirement arrangements? Is he aware that some young GPs are very up to date, but some elderly GPs are very wise old birds indeed?

Mr. Newton: I entirely accept that it is not possible to state that at any particular age a particular group of people is totally past it. I emphasise that there is nothing to prevent any doctor from continuing in private practice if he so wishes. However, we think that, as an act of general policy, it is sensible no longer to enter into NHS contracts with people aged over 70. The precise nature of the change will again be the subject of discussions with the profession, and there will be a transitional period. I believe this to be one of the changes that will gain widespread support both in the profession —that has already become evident —and among many outside it.

Mr. Max Madden: Why has the Minister set the compulsory retirement age at 70 rather than lower? What is his estimate of the proportion of pensioners who will have to pay for dental and eye checks? Does he accept that, as the proposals to introduce these charges were not contained in the consultation paper or the general election Tory manifesto, they represent a cowardly attack on health prevention?

Mr. Newton: The changes that I have outlined this afternoon for dental examinations and eye tests require legislation, and that is contained in the Health and Medicines Bill that will be published later today. There will be no shortage of opportunity for debate and discussion and for those outside to make their views known.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition attacks on the principle of charging are rather hollow because it was their Government who, in 1951, first introduced the principle? Does he further agree that, for those who are not exempt and have good incomes, a £10 charge towards helping to keep their health is very good value? Is that not especially true when compared with, for example, the expenditure of £500 on a holiday? Is that not the sort of value standard that we should be considering?

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although £10 is the payment that we make now to ophthalmic opticians for sight tests, the payment to other sight testers, such as ophthalmic medical practitioners, is substantially less. As I have already said, I expect that under the new system there will be considerable pressure to keep charges down.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May I draw the Minister's attention to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight),


who pointed out that it is not just a sight test, but an eye test, as the eyes are also screened for diseases? Will not charging act as a deterrent to the very basic primary care the Minister claims he is trying to improve? Is not that same principle applicable to dental charges? Will they not also be a deterrent, and, therefore, will not the standard of dental care decline, with the consequent effect of greater costs in the community through loss of work and working hours and so on? Is it not true the people will face those charges at a time when the Government are pouring some £11 billion into nuclear deterrence? People should know that mass extermination has a higher priority than the dental and eye care of our people.

Mr. Newton: Given that, at current rates, the charge for a dental examination will be about £3 or less, and in the light of what I have said about sight testing charges, I refuse to believe that, in a country whose standard of living is growing as fast as ours, the effects of the proposals will be as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the Minister and the House pause and comprehend that if, in the Health Service, we start to identify particular patients to receive treatment in advance of others, it will do grave damage to the NHS and its patients? I am, of course, referring to Baby Barber. Does my hon. Friend understand that if we were to alter our system of funding drugs, and not have huge companies that, in America, do not accept such disciplines, Britain would have the enormous advantage of ordinary drugs, the Health Service would benefit greatly and we would not have to make these appalling decisions of choice?

Mr. Newton: It is certainly true that the various actions that the Government have taken to ensure that the drug bill is effective and economical contribute, as did the introduction of the selected list, to other things that we want to do in the Health Service. It is all about priorities, and much of my statement was about priorities. I think that they are the right priorities.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that dentists in inner-city areas are already gravely concerned about the deterioration in the state of the teeth of those living in inner cities? Has that not come about because of charges, which are clearly a disincentive? Yet, under the White Paper, charges will rise, and charging for what is currently free dental inspection will add to the deterrent effect.
The Minister mentioned accident and emergency provision. Is he aware that in the London borough of

Newham that provision is now approaching breakdown point? I now understand why the Prime Minister does not want to televise the proceedings of the House —it is because the people of this country would see what an evil, rapacious and uncaring bunch the Tory Members have become.

Mr. Newton: I wish to make two points. First, if there is any sort of decline in the standard of teeth in inner-city areas, it is a result of the generally poor quality of primary health services in those areas—something that a large part of the thrust of the document is designed to tackle to bring about improvement. Secondly, one of the pressures on inner-city accident and emergency departments is, again, the inadequacy of the primary care services. not least the extent to which general practice is conducted from lock-up shops. That leads people to go to the local hospitals. Again, we come back to the essential need for the improvement of primary care services, and we are seeking to direct resources to that through this White Paper.

Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it concerned with the statement?

Mr. Cook: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the hon. Gentleman has the right to ask another question. He does not need to raise a point of order.

Mr. Cook: I am very happy to make my point under whichever procedure you recommend, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that the Minister is addressing a press conference on the White Paper and the Bill at 4.30 pm. The House is in some difficulty because the Bill is not available to hon. Members until it is presented, which may be another 15 or 20 minutes. It would be a courtesy to the House if the Minister did not refer to the contents of the Bill until it is in the hands of hon. Members.

Mr. Newton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said. It may be difficult for me to respond to some of the questions that I may be asked, but I shall try to stick to the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman reasonably asked.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. The Front Bench has a right to a further Question. I will take points of order after the applications under Standing Order No. 20.

British Coal Houses (Nottinghamshire)

Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
British Coal's decision in Nottinghamshire to reject the financial bid by a consortium of housing associations for the remaining tenanted homes in Nottinghamshire which British Coal currently owns
About 2,000 homes and 3,500 people, mainly retired mining employees, are involved in this. The matter is urgent because, as I said during points of order in the House on Friday, the Secretary of State for Energy should have instructed British Coal to accept the consortium's bid of £7 million in the interests of the people who live in those houses. Late yesterday, British Coal decided to reject that offer. It is the third time that British Coal has turned down offers for those homes, with bids from the housing associations ranging from £5 million to the present offer of more than £7 million.
It is important that we discuss the matter, because more than 90 per cent. of those who live in the houses are over 65 years of age. They have given their lives to the coal industry and now face the prospect of private landlords, whose record in connection with former British Coal housing stock is deplorable. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that these tenants are seriously worried. Recent reports from the Nottinghamshire Federation of Coal Tenants and Shelter tell a sorry tale of bad landlords, intimidation and lack of repairs to properties. Those people have the right to security in old age in their homes.
An Adjournment of the House to discuss the matter fully would stop the mass sale of those homes to private speculators, who have shown their lack of care for the tenants involved.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of British Coal to turn down a bid of £7 million made by a consortium of housing associations to buy the remaining homes which it currently owns and rents in Nottinghamshire.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that the matter which he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Educational Buildings (Aberdeen)

Mr. Frank Doran: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the implications of the recently discovered serious structural faults in educational establishments in Aberdeen.
There is a serious problem in my constituency. On Monday, Grampian regional council was forced to evacuate Aberdeen college of commerce. An engineer's report declared that serious structural faults in the building rendered it unsafe. There is no immediate danger of collapse, but I welcome the prudence of the regional council in erring on the side of safety. The regional council has been advised that the cost of repair will be such that the only economic course may be to demolish the building and rebuild it.
That is the third educational building in Aberdeen where serious faults have recently been discovered. Aberdeen technical college is undergoing repairs at an estimated cost of £500,000. Summerhill academy, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), requires repairs costing £750,000. I am advised that all three buildings were the work of one architect and that several other schools were built by him. Today, the director of education of Grampian regional council advised me that the council carries out annual inspections of all school buildings and that no serious defects have been found. However, to allay the fears of parents, pupils, staff and the public, immediate further inspections have been instructed. I welcome that response.
As a result of the emergency, the provision of education in my constituency and in the city of Aberdeen is in a crisis. First, there is the urgent task of relocating about 8,000 full-time, part-time and day release students from Aberdeen college of commerce. Secondly, we must urgently replace or repair the buildings that have already been identified as defective and others which may be so identified. We must also reassure parents, pupils, staff and public that there is no risk to anyone studying at educational establishments in Aberdeen.
In these days of severe financial restrictions placed on local authorities, the immense and unforeseen costs that now face Grampian regional council cannot be met from its present resources. In the event of your accepting the motion, Mr. Speaker, I shall call on the Secretary of State for Scotland to give a clear commitment to make available additional finance to the regional council.
I urge you to accept the motion, Mr. Speaker, and allow a discussion of this important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the implications of the recently discovered structural faults in educational establishments in Aberdeen.
I regret that I must give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). This matter is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to raise it in the House.

points of Order

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would help the House by encouraging Ministers, when they give statements, to provide copies of those statements in the Vote Office, if not in advance at least by the time the statement starts. We will not see the Minister for Health's statement until Hansard is published tomorrow. It is especially unfair to the House because, when the Minister started his speech, people could be seen going round the Press Gallery delivering copies of it to the press. We all defer to the press as the fourth estate, of course, but there is no reason why we should be handicapped by not having copies of statements which would improve our ability to ask more probing questions and therefore make the Government more accountable. Perhaps the Government are frightened of that. That is why I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your influence in obtaining copies of statements.

Mr. Speaker: Although I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think that this is a matter for the Chair. The question should properly be put to the Leader of the House tomorrow. I understand the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to spoil your birthday. You have already heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) talking about British Coal running all over those people in Nottinghamshire and other areas. I hope that you will use your influence to get the Secretary of State for Energy to help us with this problem, because we have reached the end of the road.

Mr. Speaker: I omitted to say to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) that I hoped that he would find other ways of bringing the matter before the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do the same.

BILL PRESENTED

HEALTH AND MEDICINES

Mr. John Moore, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Tony Newton and Mrs. Edwina Currie presented a Bill to make a further provision in relation to the National Health Service, the testing of sight and instruction in matters relating to health and welfare and to amend the Medicines Act 1971: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Scottish Parliament, elected by a system of proportional representation, to assume legislative authority on all matters of public policy relating to Scotland under reservation of matters; relating to defence, international and economic affairs which shall remain the preserve of the United Kingdom Parliament, to provide for changes in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies; and for connected purposes.
The Bill complements the motion that was introduced on Monday by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party. I have no wish to weary the House with such matters, but the demand for a measure to devolve political power to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom is more than a passing fancy and will not go away. Nor is the issue wholly Scottish. The motion seeks to reach a wider audience of hon. Members than did the predominantly, and understandably, Scottish debate on Monday.
It is essential for the long-term success of the policy of decentralisation that the Scottish measure is endorsed broadly by the whole House. In addition, the essential features of the decentralisation proposed for Scotland by the Bill should eventually be translated, suitably, to other nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
In essence, the Bill seeks a devolved legislative body to be called a Scottish Parliament. It would be granted tax-raising powers; it would deal with all domestic matters; except defence, international affairs and United Kingdom economic policy. Reduced to those bare essentials, the Bill has considerable support across all parties, in the media and in the broad sweep of public opinion in Scotland, embodying as it does the proposition that such a proposal should be enshrined in law in the near future.
I do not think it is a matter of any great contention that a measure such as this is urgent and necessary because of for example, the congestion of business in the House, the inexorable increase in pressure of time under which we all work, the defective quality of some of the legislation that is often produced on Scottish matters, the insidious infiltration of English notions into our civil and criminal law system and, perhaps most important of all, the lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the administrators in St. Andrew's house.
It is a matter of slightly more contention that reform is also necessary because of the party political balance, which currently leaves the governance of Scotland in the hands of a party that has only minority support in terms of Scottish votes and seats. There is no guarantee that that unsatisfactory position will change in the near future There are therefore compelling and positive reasons for seeking a change by means of a carefully considered, democratic and thought-out measure of reform that is necessary and long overdue.
Nothing should distract us from the urgent need for reform, even if there is less agreement on the necessary component parts of that package. The proposals that we put forward—we have made no secret of it—contain a number of checks and balances that we consider essential First, there is the need for a system of election that relates seats directly to votes. Secondly, we perceive the need to bring about a parallel and simultaneous reduction in the


tiered structure of Scottish local government. Thirdly, we face up squarely to the need to redress the balance of Scottish representation in this House en route to a United Kingdomwide system of devolution, with the consequences that that has for the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We believe that parts of our proposals would meet the political needs of the present and command widespread support throughout the United Kingdom. Of course, we recognise that other political parties have different political components in their own schemes and that party political interests are obviously directly at stake. The ultimate test should be that the reform should command widespread public support in Scotland and beyond. All our party political interests should be subordinate and subservient to that aim.
The Secretary of State for Scotland —at least as of Monday night —appears to believe that the measure should be enacted, but only if there is evidence of widespread public support for it. Regrettably, the Government's test of public support appears to amount to people having to take to the streets to demonstrate their interest. That, indeed, is what the Government may eventually face if they continue their prolonged inaction.
I introduced a Bill in the last Parliament to establish a Scottish Parliament. I was voted down, having been opposed by Mr. Gerald Malone, the then hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to be heard.

Mr. Kirkwood: Not for much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall continue for as long as I have the privilege of serving in Parliament to raise the need for legislation of this sort —until the Government, or some future Government, see fit to give Scotland and the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom a meaningful measure of political decentralisation.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) seeking to oppose?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on a neat piece of parliamentary footwork because, by his introduction of the Bill today, he has effectively forced the Labour party to defer consideration of its Bill, which was originally planned for next Monday, until after next week. That little bit of manoeuvring shows the disunity of the devolution ranks—a disunity that was underlined by the backbiting and bickering that we saw among Opposition Members in Monday's debate. It is underlined again and again by what happens in Scotland, too. For example, recently the so-called festival of democracy was held in Glasgow. It was supposed to be a fun-filled day of united devolutionary fervour, but what happened? First, the Scottish National party pulled out; then the Social Democratic party pulled out; it was followed by the other part of the Social Democratic party; and, finally, the Liberals pulled out, too. That is an example of the fact that there is no unity whatever when one gets behind the slogans.
Monday's debate, and the hon. Gentleman's speech today, are remarkable for the absence of any real effort to point to tangible advantages for the people of Scotland of having a Scottish assembly. We know, however, what the costs and damage would be. The leaders of industry and commerce have made it absolutely clear that they do not believe that an assembly would be in the interests of the wealth-creating sector. The costs would not only consist of setting up an assembly, although the Scotland and Wales Bill of the last Labour Government estimated that 1,000 extra Scottish civil servants would be created by that measure alone. There would also be the costs of uncertainty, the wholesale and unnecessary reorganisation of local government and the costs of extra taxation. Let the House be in no doubt about the ambition of the Left in Scotland to use an assembly to increase taxation on the minority, or taxes on industry and commerce, to finance extravagance —just as it has done under the rating system in Scotland. There would also be constant conflict between an assembly and the House.
It is breathtaking for the Liberal party to say that it recognises that its proposals involve a major constitutional problem, best known as the West Lothian question. The Leader of the Liberal party has told the House that there is no answer to the West Lothian question, but that he will go ahead with his proposals in any event. That question is an example of the conflict that would inevitably arise and which cannot be avoided.
Take, for example, 1964, or 1974, when Labour Governments had a majority in the United Kingdom but not in England. It would not be tolerable for Scottish Members to vote on measures that the majority of English Members did not want, when neither Scottish nor English Members had any right to vote on similar measures that affected Scotland. The result would be constitutional chaos.
I believe that there are genuine doubts among English Labour Members of Parliament about Scottish devolution. Many of them may recall the wise words of the present leader of the Labour party, who said in 1978:
The irony of devolution is that it will smash beyond healing the unity of Britain …These devolution proposals offer a maximum of risk with a minimum of gain to the Scots people.
I urge English Labour Members to take this opportunity to abstain on the vote, to show their doubts about devolution. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose a measure that would result in no gains for the people of Scotland and would involve real costs and disadvantages for them. It would inevitably lead to a constitutional crisis for the United Kingdom and the House.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19, (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided:Ayes: 97,Noes: 263.

Division No. 80]
[4.50 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alton, David
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Callaghan, Jim


Ashdown, Paddy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barron, Kevin
Cartwright, John


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Blair, Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Clelland, David






Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunnachie, James
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
O'Neill, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Faulds, Andrew
Pike, Peter


Fearn, Ronald
Reid, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, George


Foulkes, George
Rooker, Jeff


Galbraith, Samuel
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Salmond, Alex


Gould, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Graham, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Clare


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Kennedy, Charles
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lambie, David
Worthington, Anthony


Litherland, Robert



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


McAllion, John



McAvoy, Tom





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Benyon, W.
Cope, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Curry, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Devlin, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dover, Den


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dunn, Bob


Browne John (Winchester)
Durant, Tony


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Buck, Sir Antony
Evennett, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Fallon, Michael


Burns, Simon
Favell, Tony


Burt, Alistair
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butcher, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Chris
Fookes, Miss Janet


Butterfill, John
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forth, Eric


Carrington, Matthew
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman





Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Freeman, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, George
Maples, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Ground, Patrick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hannam, John
Neale, Gerrard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hind, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holt, Richard
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Irvine, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Janman, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Skinner, Dennis


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stevens, Lewis


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood,


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David






Tapsell, Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn and Mr. Bill Walker.


Waller, Gary



Ward, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has just been invited to make a very important decision on a very important constitutional matter. It was apparent to hon. Members who have just voted in the Division that official Opposition Members moved in all directions. Some went to the Aye Lobby and some went to the No Lobby. Can we have some guidance as to their stance?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is not a point of order for the Chair. Hon. Members are entitled to go into whichever Division Lobby they choose.

Orders of the Day — Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1

ALTERATION OF FINANCIAL LIMITS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 14, after 'corporations', insert
(whether or not existing at the commencement of the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Act 1987)

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 19, at end insert
(whether or not existing at the commencement of the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Act 1987)

Mr. Boyes: We gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, but expressed a number of reservations in principle about undemocratic, unelected bodies having strong powers, and I described those as planning, land assembly, disposal for private sector development, industrial and commercial development, promotion, environment improvement, housing and infrastructure. By any definition, urban development corporations will have tremendous powers.
We also stressed on Second Reading that the urban development corporations can work outside the strategic and economic goals of the local authority. Urban development corporations can actually implement policies contrary to the wishes and policies of the local authority. To that extent we regret very much that the Government could not support our amendment in Committee calling for consultation with the appropriate local authority, or authorities, before investment decisions were made.
It is interesting to note that the CBI, at its conference recently, also stressed the dangers of ignoring local authorities. Mr. Peter Hetherington, in an article in The Guardian, wrote:
The CBI yesterday warned the Government that its efforts to revive inner cities will fail if it bypassed councils with Whitehall-controlled agencies.
The CBI director-general, Mr. John Banham, said the councils were efficient and effective in many respects.
In the same article, Mr. David Goldstone, the managing director of Regalian properties, said:
government constraints on funds for local councils were often short-sighted.
Despite our concerns, on Second Reading I said that we would work with the urban development corporations until the next general election, when we would review all development corporation activities.
The basis of the amendment is our concern about mini urban development corporations. There are strong rumours that an announcement will be made shortly that a large number of mini corporations are to be created. I understand that the figure is in excess of 24·I have a series of questions for the Minister. How many mini corporations does he expect to announce in the short term?


Are there any long-term objectives and goals? As rumours are flying at the moment about the creation of new mini urban development corporations, when will he announce a date for them?
As this matter is doubtless advanced, what consultation has taken place, or will take place, with the local authority or authorities concerned with these urban development corporations? This morning I spoke to the policy head of the directorate of Manchester city council. It is clear that a number of local authorities are already working closely with the private sector and developing urban regeneration initiatives in genuine joint venture partnerships. Might not the imposition of the solution of mini urban development corporations be unnecessary and even counter-productive in many of those areas? Will the Minister assure us that he will not impose the solution in areas where there is clear evidence of co-operation without consultation with local interests to see whether they believe that the introduction of such measures is necessary?
What will happen if a local authority refuses to agree to have a mini urban development corporation in its area? I am also concerned about the way in which the mini urban development corporations will be placed in localities. I raise this point because, in a speech on Wednesday 3 June 1987 to the Loynell's Road Residents Association in Birmingham Northfield, the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
We hope local people will bring to our attention areas of dereliction which they think can benefit from this approach. He meant the mini UDC approach. When the Minister replies, will he define exactly what he means by "local people"? I see no mention of local authorities in the extract of the speech by the Secretary of State 
Will the Minister tell us whether each mini urban development corporation will have its own board? That will be of particular interest if there should be more than one mini urban development corporation in one local authority area. Will he also amplify the point he made in reply to my question on 4 November 1987 when I asked if he would consider funding urban development corporations by the same method as the new town corporations are funded?
The Minister said:
The answer to the question why we cannot fund them as we did the new towns is straightforward: the new towns were financed from loans and were building on green field sites. The UDCs are building in areas where many millions of pounds must be spent before sites can be developed, and the only prudent way of financing such expenditure is by grant." —[Official Report 4 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 1013.]
The difference is that central Government have absolute control over the grants, whereas, if the urban development corporations were free to raise loans on the market, for example, that would give them less control over the spending powers of the mini urban development corporations and the urban development corporations than the Minister intended. I could not follow the difference between the green fields suggestion and the other phrase that was used about the inner cities. 
I understand that the aim is to attract private capital, with an initial investment of between £10 million and £15 million of public money. We made it absolutely clear on Second Reading that certain areas — for example, the north-east of England—have tremendous difficulties in raising private capital. At that time I quoted at length from a letter from Martin Laing, the chairman of John Lanig plc and chairman of the national contractors' group of the

Building Employers Confederation. I shall not quote from it now. That pointed out clearly the difficulties that areas such as mine would have in attracting private capital.
In an editorial in The Times, of 13 November 1986, the writer stated:
"the £128 million of grants to the Merseyside Board have yet to stimulate anything like the response from private developers seen in London's Dockland.
The new boards will have to operate conditions much closer to Merseyside than to those of the London Docklands." 
Part of our opposition to the formation of mini UDCs is that we cannot see that £10 million to £15 million will attract the private capital that the government anticipate. We consider them to be a method of bypassing the local authorities. John Banham warned us of the dangers of putting money into areas without local authorities being given the opportunity to cary out their tasks and functions.
It has been put to me that it would be eminently sensible and wise to monitor the results obtained by the existing five urban development corporations before we get a proliferation of urban development corporations, even if some of them are minis. Could it not create an atmosphere in which in some areas urban development corporations will compete among themselves for scarce resources, particularly in areas where local authorities and other agencies already find it extremely difficult to attract private capital?

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyes: No; I have almost finished. 
We note, as part of our opposition to mini urban development corporations, Lord Young's comments in this morning's edition of The Independent  He said:
Where we see our role is to help employment come back to the inner cities. Now there is no way in which any new outside employer would go into the inner cities. Vandalism is too high and the problems are too great".
It seems that the Conservative party has already abandoned its plans for inner-city regeneration Lord Young clearly accepts that there will be difficulties in attracting capital into our inner-city areas. If Lord Young is correct, does that not emphasise my point that the idea of a proliferation of mini UDCs should be abandoned? Opposition Members believe that they should be scrapped, or at worst delayed, because of that pessimistic approach.
Those of us interested in inner-city regeneration seek an optimistic approach. The Government's proposals today reveal a cynical approach. I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that, until the five urban development corporations have existed for a reasonable time, and we have been able to measure their success. he will withhold any statement about the introduction of the 30 mini urban development corporations.

Mr. Steen: If I had been allowed to intervene, I should have asked the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) a number of questions based on the fact that he does not want urban development corporations. Is he saying that the same sums of money should go to local authorities? Is he saying that that is the solution to the inner-city problems? If one traces the history of the inner cities, one can see what has happened on the Opposition Benches.
In 1968, the then Prime Minister woke up to the problems of the inner cities. The Government gave £20


million to solve the problems. The Labour Government then shifted the rate support grant from the rural areas to the inner-city areas, believing that a little extra money would sort out the difficulties. It did not. The following Conservative Administration then put a lot of money into research, there were inner-city studies, and studies of the neighbourhood quality of life. They believed that more research was needed.
Then the Labour Government introduced a whole range of measures for rejigging local authority priorities. The most noticeable measure was the comprehensive community programme, which told local authorities to re-order their priorities in favour of the inner cities. Since 1979, the Conservative Administration have introduced an entirely new approach to the inner cities, based not on community development or social development, but on economic redevelopment. The watershed clearly occurred in 1979, when the research and other measures about social cohesion and community development were replaced by economic regeneration. We must give this Government the credit for that, and it should be stated that the single-minded approach on economic regeneration has had very important results.
Not all Government measures have been as successful as one would have liked. The enterprise zone presents a mixed picture and the free ports have not got off the ground as fast as one would have liked. The urban development corporations in Merseyside and the London docklands, which are the oldest, have no doubt had an impact 
If we pump enormous sums of money into a very small locality, it is obvious that there will be some impact. The question is whether the impact is desirable, whether it is beneficial to the area, and whether there is a better way of spending those sums of public money.
I am anxious to hear the Minister's reply to the amendment, because President Carter spent billions of dollars on a similar exercise to the urban development corporations. He called it the model city programme, and targeted substantial sums of public money into rundown industrial areas, mostly in the North American cities, with one or two in the south. He spent every conceivable amount of public money trying to revive dying neighbourhoods. That is exactly what the urban development corporations are trying to do.
There is a slight distinction between them and the model city programme of President Carter, which erased the entire housing stock of an area, moved the people out, and then rebuilt the housing, redesigned the environment and put people back again. To the amazement of Congress, 10 years after the experiment it found unfortunately the same incidence of unemployment, drug addiction and drunkenness, the same problems with single-parent mums, the elderly and the retired, and the same number of young people on probation. So all that resulted was newer housing, but it soon became run down again as the same people moved back and could not maintain it.
The urban development corporations are pouring larger sums of public money into inner cities than has ever been poured into them before. The Opposition should be ecstatic that the Government have poured so much money into inner cities. That should be the Opposition's starting point, because no Government since 1968 have put so

much money into inner-city areas. The question that the Opposition should ask—they have not asked it, so I am asking it for them—is, could not that money be better or as well spent if it did not necessarily go through the local authorities? Local authorities have problems with competing claims, and they do not have the mechanism to do the things that urban development corporations could do.
The solution to inner-city problems has not been found by this Government or previous Governments because the money, which amounts to tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, is being spent solely on economic regeneration. Although economic regeneration is crucial to the redevelopment of inner cities, the only way inner cities will ever redevelop is by motivating and financing the people who live in the houses, street by street, to help themselves. In years to come, we will look back on urban development corporations as another watershed. They are another approach by which the Government try to rescue the inner cities.
The Opposition's argument, which they have put as strongly as they can, is that the weakness of urban development corporations as a concept is that they are undemocratic and do not go through local authorities. My argument is not along those lines. I think that local authorities have failed, for good reasons, to regenerate areas in ways the urban development corporations have done in dockland and on Merseyside.
My criticism is that the money could be better targeted if the urban development corporations were based on neighbourhoods and on people rather than on buildings. London is a special case and docklands has been a great success; no one would want to criticise the Government for putting money into London. On Merseyside they made a brave attempt, but I do not know how successful it has been. It was based on derelict docks; there were no people living there. I am concerned that the new development corporations or the mini development corporations may not be based on communities and neighbourhoods. The inner cities are bound to get worse unless the Government direct the public intervention, which is now on a larger scale than ever before, into neighbourhoods which exist; they should bolster the people living there and help them to help themselves.
Planning controls should be relaxed so that people can work even in their back garden or in their back shed which planning regulations prevent them doing now. There should be much more homesteading and shopsteading so that people can take over derelict buildings and renovate, improve and live in them. That was done in London under the Conservative GLC. It has been done all over the States, but it is not being done in our inner cities today. Homesteading and shopsteading would start to change the face of these areas.
Cheap money is critical so that people can borrow without the penalties suffered now because of the levels of interest. If public money is pumped into urban development corporations, something will happen. Places will look better, but if the model city programmes of the States have anything to teach us it is that just giving a facelift to decaying urban areas will not change the endemic problems of the people living there. We keep talking about being taught by what other people have done, but we seem never to learn; we go on making the same mistakes.
I think that the amendment is aiming to tease out the extent to which the Government will spend increasing sums of public money on inner cities through urban development corporations or mini urban development corporations but sidestepping local government. We may disagree about whether or not there is advantage in that. Although that expenditure may make areas look better, the endemic problems will still exist.
I fear that the urban development corporation is just another of the long list of initiatives, welcome though they are. The House must be delighted that the Government are concentrating on inner-city problems, but it would be wrong of me to welcome unreservedly more urban development corporations because I believe that public money could be better targeted. It should be targeted on people rather than on buildings and it should be invested in getting the people in problem areas to help themselves. In the 1970s, the Labour Government injected social and community workers into inner-city areas; I know, because I was one of them. As a result of so many social workers going into some inner cities, rents of unfurnished and furnished dwellings went up because the social workers wanted accommodation in the areas which they were supposed to help.
We want to support the Minister. He is brave and enthusiastic and he wants urban development corporations to succeed. Hundreds of millions of pounds are going into urban development corporations. It is too easy, in an empty Chamber on a Wednesday afternoon, to say, "It is fine, let us go ahead." That is the way the House operates. We pour enormous sums of public money into ailing urban areas, believing that that will solve the problems. Throwing money at any problem does not solve it unless the expenditure is targeted correctly. I think the House may have got the message. While I welcome the Government's interest in inner cities and while I welcome urban development corporations, certainly in docklands and possibly the brave attempt on Merseyside, I wonder if it is the salvation of inner-city problems to have more of them.
In five years' time, if I am still here, I will probably be making another speech when the Government come up with another scheme. We should be much more reflective before we pour in all this money. I am not at all convinced that it is the solution. It proves to the country that the Government care, but we could do better if the expenditure was targeted in a slightly different way. The Minister should tell us that he will consider my idea of changing slightly the boundaries of urban development corporations to include neighbourhoods so that the power behind urban development corporations is not civil servants and task forces sent from London setting up new local offices, but the people living in the area who are inspired to help themselves. That must be the message of the Government. I am sure in his reply the Minister will want to say something helpful.

Mr. Richard Holt: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has ever been to Teesside. If he had been there recently, he would have seen the enormous strides which have already been made by Teesside development corporation. It has been in existence for only 10 weeks, but during that time it has announced three major projects, one covering Hartlepool marina involving an injection of £50 million, one covering the Stockton race track

development involving £8 million, and one covering the Smiths dock offshore projects, for which I have not got a figure.
Matching that, and very important, is the fact that already £100 million of private money has been put into the urban development corporation, as I was informed this morning when I spoke to the chief executive. This is the type of new thinking and initiative that will come from the urban development corporations. We should not try to make them stillborn, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams seems to want to do. When the Prime Minister visited Teesside, she said that it was an area of initiative, talent and ability and those words have been taken as a slogan by the Teesside development corporation.
5.30 pm
Many enthusiastic people will help in this matter. In Stockton, for example, there will be a leisure development which will be the best of its kind in the country. That will attract people to the north-east. Far too often, Governments have given money to the region, just as the Government did earlier this year when they gave a regional grant of £330,000 to ICI. That money probably bought machinery from overseas and showed up as a book-keeping entry from one area to another carried out in London. None of that regional development money would have been spent in Teesside or have improved the region's economy. On the other hand, the UDC is spending the money in the region and priority will be given to local firms. Local firms have already benefited within the first 10 weeks of the UDC being set up 
On Second Reading, I made some fairly strong remarks about the calibre of Labour councillors in the north-east of England. I do not withdraw from that as a generalised statement, but I identified an individual and that was wrong. I regret that an individual was so identified. I shall keep to the thrust of my comments, but I would like to retract my comments about any individuals.

Mr. Boyes: Although I welcome the latter comments of the hon. Gentleman, will he retract what he said about local authority officers who cannot defend themselves? Local councillors and Members of Parliament can defend themselves through a plethora of means, but civil servants and local government officers, who are often criticised, have no means of defending themselves.

Mr. Holt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that he will accept that, as there are so many councillors who work for one authority but are councillors for another, I cannot withdraw my comments in that respect. However, I retract my generalised remark about officers per se.

Miss Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar): I recognise that this is as near as the hon. Gentleman will come to an apology, and I welcome it. Would it be a good idea for him to apologise for his remarks in the press — to save him having to do so the next time we debate the Bill — alleging corruption in direct labour organisations in the district of Langbaurgh, when there is no substantial evidence to support those remarks?

Mr. Holt: If the hon. Lady were to make that remark outside the House, I would sue her. She knows that I made no remarks about corruption and, if she uses such words outside the House, she will take the consequences.

Miss Mowlam: If that is not the case, would the hon. Gentleman like to withdraw what was printed in the local press saying that he made those statements? Is this not an ideal chance for him to contradict those statements?

Mr. Holt: This will not help the debate. I should be ruled out of order if I went outside the scope of the amendment.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I would like to point out the magnanimity of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). It is nice to see this gentlemanly act and the withdrawal of his remarks about an individual during our last debate on this matter. That was right, but both I and my hon. Friend stress the need for co-operation between UDCs and local authorities. That has been the hallmark of the success of the Teesside development corporation and I speak for both of us when I say that I would like to see that continued.

Mr. Holt: I would like to see it continuing, but I am not sure that it will. Let me explain to my hon. Friend some of the problems that he is likely to have with the UDC. The chairman of the highways committee of Cleveland county council has said that he will not change his priorities to meet the requirements of the UDC. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said that there must be co-operation between Cleveland county council and the UDC. It is no good their saying that they will not help the UDC with the roads and services needed to develop the area, as the chairman of the highways committee said recently. That will not help progress. It is important for the two sides to work together. I hope that, in the same spirit of magnanimity, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will speak to senior Labour Members in Cleveland and prevail upon them to work with the new Teesside development corporation so that new jobs can be produced

Miss Mowlam: I would like to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and say how keen we are to work with the new UDC. Money is available for Teesside and, as the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, we are keen to co-operate, whatever our doubts may be. If the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is seeking co-operation with the county and the districts, he is more likely to achieve it if he starts working through the normal channels of communication with local authority officers and elected members, rather than making outrageous statements in the press and in the House

Mr. Holt: I do not think that my statements are any more outrageous than those of the chairman of the Cleveland highways committee. If the hon. Lady wants to talk to someone, she should talk to him, not me. Co-operation must come from the committee which made the statement.
UDCs were established by the Government primarily to regenerate the inner cities and to create jobs. Teesside development corporation expects the creation of 3,000 jobs in the first three years. That is to be welcomed by everybody. It is cheap per job in comparison with what has been spent in regional aid that has gone to the head offices of companies in London, not to the area. Within the next fortnight, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will open the marina project at Hartlepool and, thereafter, other proposed schemes will go ahead.
I hope that the Minister will answer a question which he did not answer on Second Reading and tell us whether the Government are prepared to re-examine the boundaries of the Teesside development corporation. The boundaries in Langbaurgh have been drawn arbitrarily. They should be flexible and should not be drawn for all time. None of my constituency is included in the TDC area, but many of my constituents work in that area. These lines on the map should not be absolute

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This amendment deals with money, not boundaries. On Third Reading, the hon. Gentleman is at liberty to discuss boundaries, but not during debate on this group of amendments

Mr. Holt: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that there will be sufficient money in the kitty to enable the review of boundaries to be undertaken on a permanent basis. If that comes about, my constituents will be grateful for that amount of money having been thoughtfully set aside by the Minister when he reconsidered the matter.
On Second Reading, I said that the amount of money that had been made available will make the people happy. I do not know whether happiness can be bought with money, but something along the lines of the Teesside development corporation is necessary. What is encouraging is that, as a result of the sort of regeneration that the Government are bringing, we already have private investment outside the UDC area, which has brought 2,000 jobs and £25 million of investment. That was the result of an announcement on 23 October by a private company.
There can be no doubt that the north-east of England has received and is receiving a great deal of attention from the Government and from the Minister—I know that he has taken a particular interest in the area. We welcome the initiative and we welcome the money. We look forward to that money being spent so that 3,000 jobs are created in two years at the absolute maximum.

Mr. Tim Devlin: When the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) opened this debate he mentioned the dfficulties that will be experienced by the UDCs in raising private capital in the north-east of England. He referred specifically to a leading article on 26 October, which said that the £120 million available to Merseyside had not attracted anything near the sum of private money that had been attracted to London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has told the House that £100 million has already been attracted for the Teesside development corporation from the private sector. That sum is a measure of the TDCs success. It may be that, because TDC is the largest development corporation—it is larger than several other development corporations put together, including London —it is therefore attracting a great deal of interest. It is also attracting interest because it has a deep-water port facing east on the east coast.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington also mentioned that he was looking for greater co-operation between the local authorities and the development corporations. On Second Reading and in Committee we discussed, at great length, the need for such co-operation. The urgency with which we must address this matter tonight is due to the fact that the imagination that has been


injected by the TDC into the local economy has been sadly lacking in the local authorities in Cleveland, Stockton and elsewhere in the region. In years gone by, it has been all too evident that those local authorities have made political decisions more often than they have made marketing decisions. Indeed, the Labour party is used to regarding the north-east as safe territory where it can do exactly as it likes. It has done its best to extinguish the torch of enterprise in that region by driving out the private householder and, wherever possible, the private business man.
The local Labour-controlled authorities are only now waking up to the fact that their policies have driven jobs away from the region, but the Conservatives have always been concerned to ensure that business and private enterprise thrives in the north as much as it does in the south

Miss Mowlam: rose——

Mr. Devlin: I shall give way in a moment. That is why we are pumping extra resources into the UDCs and, in particular, into Teesside. I hope that the available money and the extra allocation announced by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement will not be given in equal parts to the UDCs, but will take account of special needs and exciting projects. On that basis, Teesside will inevitably take the lion's share 
Opposition Members are chiefly concerned not that we are bypassing local authorities, but that we are throwing the policies of the Labour party in the north-east into reverse. I believe that that is the main reason behind the amendments that they have tabled to the Bill.

Miss Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) about the jobs that have arrived on Teesside as a result of the money invested. Both sides of the House welcome such job creation. However, will he justify his statement that local Labour authorities have turned jobs away from the area? What industries and jobs have been specifically turned away?

Mr. Devlin: Certainly it has been the case that Teesside local authorities — Stockton borough council, Middlesbrough borough council and Cleveland county council—are high-rating authorities. On more than one occasion—I will happily name names if the hon. Lady wishes—businesses have moved to north Yorkshire and other parts of the country to escape Cleveland's high rates.

Miss Mowlam: Name them.

Mr. Devlin: We could start with Marlborough Technical Management, but——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that there is any reason to name names. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) is leading the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) up the garden path.

Mr. Devlin: Perhaps that is an exciting prospect — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]Quite.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why, historically, firms did not go to the north-east was the trade union grip on firms in the area?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now very wide of the amendment. I have tried to bring the hon. Member for Stockton, South back to the amendment and I appeal to him to deal with it.

Mr. Devlin: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said that there are many things lacking in the UDCs and he feels that, in some ways, it would be better to scrap the entire Bill rather than to amend it in the ways sought by the Opposition.
I suggest that what is lacking in the north-east is confidence. The TDC and the Tyneside development corporation will reinvoke the self-confidence that drove our region forward in the past century. I tried to invoke some of that spirit in my maiden speech to the House on Second Reading of the Bill.
I have a sneaking suspicion—I believe it is shared by many northerners — that perhaps there is something wrong with the region and that is why we have such high unemployment. However, it is the TDCs task to show that there is nothing wrong with our region, that we have everything going for us, and to pick up all the elements of enterprise that are succeeding throughout Teesside and show them off. It is the TDCs task to show the region that the self-confidence that previously drove the region forward is still there and is flourishing. It is also necessary for the TDC to re-establish that spirit of self-confidence, either where it is no longer present or where it has been driven out by the policies of Labour-controlled local authorities.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know I am not one who rises often on points of order. I must feel quite strongly before I do so.
The amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and myself is fairly narrow. With respect to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who is a new Member, he has ample opportunity in his maiden speech to make what he considered to be the important points. I believe that he is turning this debate into one about the nature of local authorities and UDCs and not about UDC funding——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the point. It is difficult and I have tried to bring the hon. Member for Stockton, South back to the amendment. He is a new Member and the Chair must be more tolerant of new Members. However, I appeal to hon. Members to speak to the amendment on the Order Paper and not to go wide of that amendment. It is fine to speak more widely on Third Reading, but not when dealing with amendments. I appeal to all hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate to speak to the amendments, because I have been as tolerant as I possibly could be.

Mr. Devlin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance and forbearance. I apologise if I have erred from the path of righteousness during the debate. I shall now keep rigidly to the amendment.
I think that the most important point about the funding of development corporations is that it should not be distributed on an equal basis between all the corporations. In my disclosure of the many hidden talents of the north-east, I was attempting to show that Teesside has many things going for it—many strengths on which an urban development corporation can build very strongly. I look


forward to Teesside gaining a much greater share of the available resources when the Government come to consider the corporations on merit.
Given its beautiful countryside, skilled work force and good communications, I believe that Teesside will take off in a way that other development corporations may not. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will examine what extra resources can be given to the exciting projects that have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh.

Mr. Steen: May I beg the indulgence of the House to make one or two points clear? First, comments have been made about my wishing to scrap the Bill. The amendment is about substituting the words "whether or not existing" after the word "all". The important point that I should like to make——

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has already spoken. Is it not the case that he cannot speak again without leave of the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is quite right. The hon. Member for South Hams has spoken, and can do so again only by leave of the House?

Mr. Steen: I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for helping the House in its directions. May I seek the leave of the House to make one or two comments which have come out of——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. By leave of the House, the hon. Gentleman can do that. However, there has been an objection. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) objected to the hon. Gentleman speaking again.

Mr. Steen: Is one objection enough?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, one voice is enough.

Miss Mowlam: May I quickly ask the Minister two questions directly related to finance? First, can he tell us whether any financial implications have emerged from his meeting in Brussels in relation to efforts to get local people working on schemes produced by the Teesside development corporation? Is there any initiative to link the money invested with local jobs?
Secondly, I am concerned that money made available through the Teesside development corporation may be negated by the money that could potentially disappear from the area because of the unified business rate to be brought in with the poll tax. If the money is to be centrally redistributed per head of population—I ask the Minister to clarify that, because I am not sure about it—in some inner urban areas, where there is a low level of population, that could result in less money coming back from the unified business rate, which would negate the money going in via the urban development corporation.
Will that not undermine the stated aim of the Government, which is to invest more money in inner areas?

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Three Conservative Members spoke before the

hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) rose. Is it not normal for hon. Members who wish to speak, and who are present in the Chamber, to rise continually and try to catch your eye, so that we have a balanced debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is possible that hon. Members who are not inspired to speak in the earlier part of the debate may later feel inclined to involve themselves for one reason or another. The hon. Lady is perfectly in order.

he Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I welcome the largely positive approach adopted by Opposition Members, particularly those from the official Opposition, not only during the moving of amendments but on Second Reading —which was unopposed —and in Committee. I also welcome the description of me as brave by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). It is the first time that I have been called that for a very long time. The last time was in 1972, when I was fighting a by-election against the present hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). He not merely beat me; he metaphorically sat on me. That was a very painful experience, and the local paper described me as brave for taking him on. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Rochdale is not present to hear that, because he would have enjoyed it.
I am anxious to try to answer as many of the questions raised in the debate as possible. Let me start by reiterating what I said about mini UDCs in Committee. I referred then to the Conservative party manifesto commitment, and I do not feel any need to rehearse that again. I spelt out clearly what criteria we would be looking for when declaring areas mini UDCs. However, I should perhaps draw the attention of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) to the figure that he quoted in his opening remarks on the amendment. He referred to a figure of about two dozen. I can categorically deny that: the hon. Gentleman is very wide of the mark. I do not know whether that helps him. What I cannot help him with is an announcement about mini UDCs, but, as I tried to make clear in Committee, we hope to make an announcement by the end of the year.
The hon. Gentleman asked what consultations had taken place with local authorities. I also tried to deal with that in Committee. It would be extremely difficult for us to enter into consultations with local authorities in an area where we intend to put a UDC. To some extent, expectations would be built up; and the extra money that would be available for the area would have a considerable bearing on developments. It could be extremely reckless for us to act in that way. There must and will be a period of consultation before a UDC is created, which may be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if local authorities refused to have UDCs. He can probably guess the answer. If the proposal is passed by a statute in the House, the law of the land will override all other considerations. He also asked what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meant when he referred in a recent speech to local people. The local people in question could have relevant knowledge of the development potential of a particular area. They might be local residents, business men or local authorities. Of course, the decision whether to designate a UDC is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, subject to Parliament's approval. Not


all areas identified or brought to many attention, formally or informally will be appropriate for UDC purposes. As for the question whether, each UDC will have its own board the answer is yes.
The hon Gentleman asked why we cannot monitor existing UDCs more effectively before declaring more, although they may be smaller than their cousins. Again there is a straight forward answer. Having made a commitment in the manifesto, which was the major plank on which we were elected, we are determined to speed up the regeneration of many such areas If there is any difference between the Opposition and ourselves on what constitutes an area that is worthy of regeneration, that will apply not only to inner cities but to inner urban areas. We have had some experience with two UDCs which have been in operation for some time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister has referred to UDCs already in operation. I think that he would agree that the London Docklands development corporation is a maxi corporation. Can the Minister define "mini"? According to my recollection, section 135 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 defines the possibility of a corporation without grading corporations in any way. Will the Minister tell us what he has in mind? Has he announced the number of UDCs that he expects the Government to establish?

Mr. Trippier: I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question. However, although I do not wish to make a heavy point of it, he was not present earlier when his hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington was asking me questions. My definition of a mini urban development corporation is "small." It is small in area. Furthermore, it would receive a smaller sum of money than its cousin, the maxi urban development corporation. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has given another reason why the Government cannot effectively monitor mini urban development corporations. There are no mini urban development corporations at the moment. We shall have to build on the obvious success of the maxi urban development corporations
6 pm
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington asked whether a local authority could apply. Yes, it could. Those to whom the Secretary of State referred in his recent speech could include local authorities. The hon. Gentleman referred also to a recent interview with my right hon. Friend Lord Young. There is no difference of opinion between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment. Inward investment in Washington has been extremely successful. For example, Nissan is now located there, but the point that I have made on several occasions is that one cannot regularly expect to achieve that degree of success.
Wherever possible, we must encourage indigenous growth. Therefore, I welcome what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt): that the urban development corporation in his area is of great benefit to local firms. It is important to encourage start-ups, but it is also very important to encourage the development and the strengthening of existing firms—a point that will not be lost on the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington.
I welcomed the bullish statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) concerning his

constituency and the north-east region as a whole. He made a similar statement in his maiden speech. I very much welcomed it then, and I am sure that the House enjoyed it.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) said that in future I ought not to fly over Redcar; I ought to drop in. I do not know whether the hon. Lady meant that literally. If the hon. Lady would be kind enough to extend an invitation to me to visit Redcar, I should be only too pleased to do so.
I shall reply in reverse order to the hon. Lady's two questions. I shall check what I am about to say when I return to the Department, but I believe that the proposed unified business rate will benefit the north-east, including the area that she represents. I shall happily write to the hon. Lady explaining in what way the area would benefit and what the percentage decrease would be. In general terms, it will benefit areas in the north as opposed to those in the south.

Mr. Devlin: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister is looking for a reduction of about 23 per cent

Mr. Trippier: If that is a fact rather than hypothesis, I am sure that the hon. Lady will be impressed.

Miss Mowlam: The figure that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has given is the average figure. I agree wholeheartedly that the average figure is 23 per cent. If, however, it were to be redistributed on a per head of population basis, the figure would be different. I am interested in what would happen if we went below the average level. It is that figure in which I am particularly interested.

Mr. Trippier: The announcement will have to be made about the unified business rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South referred to the only available figures at the moment. If there is any further information that I can give to the hon. Lady, I shall write to her.
The hon. Lady also referred to the employment of local people. A European Community directive clearly states that it is not mandatory that local people should be employed. I do not believe that there is any intention to alter that directive. On Second Reading the hon. Lady made it clear that she wanted the Government to do all that they could to encourage the employment of local people. I support that view, but we cannot make the employment of local people mandatory.
The Government have achieved considerable success with the Merseyside development corporation. The vast majority of those who are employed on construction work and in manufacturing, both in new firms and in expanding firms, are local people. That gives me the confidence to say to the hon. Lady that I am sure that that can be replicated on Teesside. We want, wherever possible, to encourage the employment of local people, but it is nonsense to say that they will automatically be employed. They cannot be employed unless their skills are up to the standards required by the companies that have vacancies. The Manpower Services Commission must concentrate on dealing with this problem and overcome the mismatch of skills; otherwise, we shall be wasting our time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh referred yet again to boundaries. The boundaries of all the urban development corporations are subject to revision, but they can be revised only by statutory instrument. I have taken


on board my hon. Friend's point, and I shall be prepared to look from time to time at the revision of their boundaries.
When the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington moved his amendment, he said that it was a probing amendment, by means of which he could ask a few questions. I am grateful to him for saying that. He knows that his amendments are unnecessary and that the provisions of the Bill apply to all urban development corporations. In the circumstances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams referred to neighbourhood schemes. My hon. Friend may be making a mistake by drawing a comparison between urban development corporations and neighbourhood schemes. He believes that they are mutually exclusive, but they are not. A number of initiatives have been taken recently. A few years ago my hon. Friend wrote an excellent book on inner-city regeneration. He referred to the city action teams and to the task forces that have responsibility for neighbourhoods. Estate Action, with which I am familiar, because it operates in my constituency, deals with a clearly defined neighbourhood.
Housing action trusts:— which have not yet been announced, but which have been discussed in the recent White Paper—and general improvement areas will not be nullified by the declaration of urban development corporations. It is important that I should write to my hon. Friend to tell him of certain recent initiatives that have been deployed by the London Docklands development corporation, particularly with regard to community support. He might then be encouraged. But if he wished to come back to me afterwards, he would be very welcome to do so.
I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will now withdraw his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
'(3) Section 1 of this Act shall expire three months after the day it was passed, unless continued in force by an order under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that section 1 of this Act (whether or not in force by virtue of an order under this section) shall continue in force for a period not exceeding 12 months from the coming into operation of the order—
(a) that section 1 of this Act shall cease to be in force; or
(b) that if section 1 of this Act is not for the time being in force it shall come into force again and remain in force for a period not exceeding 12 months from the coming into operation of the order.
(5) Where section 1 of this Act expires by virtue of subsection (3) above or ceases to have effect by virtue of an Order made under sub-section (4) above, the provisions which it replaces shall revive.'
You, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members will realise that this amendment is moved in a form that is not unusual in the House, in order to try to ensure that there is a regular opportunity to debate the provisions of the Bill. The wording is not mine. The Minister knows that the wording

of the amendment is to be found in other legislation. The most specific and obvious example is the wording that is to be found in the emergency provisions legislation relating to Northern Ireland. The Act continues in force only by order of the House
I have sought to amend the Bill in this way because of the general issue that we debated to some extent on Second Reading and again in Committee: the change in the procedure whereby, instead of the grant-funding of urban development corporations being subject to specific approval by order of the House, it will be controlled by other methods, to which the Minister referred when he opened the Second Reading debate.
One of the significant elements of the Government's inner-city policy is that they intend to use urban development corporations — I accept that they have a right to do that—as a major platform for regenerating inner cities. There are two original ones, four more recently established and there may be some others established. The mechanism in the past has been that, both in the original Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and in the New Towns and Urban Development Act 1985, there was an upper limit to the amount of grant, variable by order to a second limit, and that within the constraints of both Acts Ministers have been able to come to the House to seek approval to increase the amount. The Bill proposes that the grant funding process will go. The Minister has conceded that the House will exercise control in future, first, by the general voting of Supply in the general Estimates debates and votes, and, secondly, by any control mechanism that is able to be exercised through Select Committees, in particular the Select Committee on the Environment.
As all hon. Members know, there is always a problem about considering in detail in general debates the votes of funds for specific projects. A debate about how much money should be given to the programmes of the Department of the Environment would not be able to concentrate in the same way as debates in the past about specific funding for the six or more urban development corporations.

Mr. Spearing: It could be more than six.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with the Minister that there is a control mechanism. However, there are all sorts of other matters that hon. Members may wish to raise in general debates, and the ability to focus on the specific issue of the funding of urban development corporations will not be there. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, there may well be more than six urban development corporations. The more there are, the less likely it is that concerns will be able to be explicitly voiced and answered by Ministers, and that is because of the time given to debate Supply.
The Minister can probably anticipate my objection about debates before Select Committees being adequate. Of course, all hon. Members are not able to take part in debates in Select Committee as they are not members, unlike debates on orders in the House, which are open to all hon. Members. The more urban development corporations there are, the more hon. Members there will be with constituency interests who will want to intervene. However, they may not be members of either the Select Committee on the Environment or the Public Accounts Committee and it is inevitable that some hon. Members


will not be able to raise their concerns in Committee and that the debate that we have had in the past on the Floor of the House will be lost.
The best way of voicing the concern that I expressed on Second Reading and that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) expressed in Committee is to urge the House to give hon. Members an opportunity to renew the Act annually. That is how the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 applies. The Government bring before the House an order to renew, vary or reactivate the Act. The debate would take an hour or so and would be limited to those hon. Members who wanted to attend. The debate is about accountability.
The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said earlier that the Government are concentrating an enormous amount of public resources on urban development corporations. There is not only the general public concern about the sheer relative size of the public Exchequer contribution but the explicit local concern about the local regeneration of areas by Government agencies. Particularly when the Government agency meets in secret, there clearly is a risk that what it does is not open to proper debate and that the progress, success, failure or relative benefit or otherwise will not be able to be debated properly. It cannot be debated in the local authorities because they are not empowered to do that, so it has to be debated here.
I ask the Minister to say that there is a proper concern for the accountability for the funding of development corporations, whatever their number, that the experience of the six years of their existence confirms that concern, and that therefore the Government will accept the amendment to have an annual debate and an annual vote on the continuance of the change in procedure that is proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Trippier: It is clear that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I will not agree. I do not want to catalogue the various mechanisms that are available to hon. Members, as I touched on them on Second Reading and again in Committee. The bottom line of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is why the system has changed since 1980. The simple answer is that there were features that, with the benefit of experience in those seven years, could be improved. Since the UDC concept was introduced in 1980, there have been three pieces of primary legislation.
As I have indicated, there are plenty of opportunities for hon. Members to raise the issue of urban development corporations. The hon. Gentleman has catalogued the two most important ones, but there is the investigation by the National Audit Office on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, which very much involves the House and—I know that the hon. Gentleman will smile when I say this —there are Opposition days when hon. Members may choose to debate UDCs, and there are also opportunities during Adjournment and other debates.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his amendment. If he will not withdraw it, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Hughes: I anticipated the Minister's resistance, and I have consulted my colleagues. We will exercise our opportunities to debate the matter on Adjournment debates and on whatever other occasions arise. Opposition

days are inevitably limited to the major Opposition party. The National Audit Office is conducting an investigation at the moment on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee and I understand that it is to report in January. However, our experience has been that those opportunities for debate have not been sufficient. I ask that the amendment be put to the House.

Question put.That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 18, Noes 202.

Division No. 81]
[6.20 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ashdown, Paddy
Nellist, Dave


Beith, A. J.
Salmond, Alex


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Clay, Bob
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Fearn, Ronald



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)
Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Matthew Taylor.


Kirkwood, Archy





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Favell, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Fry, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorst, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gow, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hannam, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, John
Hayward, Robert


Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Critchley, Julian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Curry, David
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Holt, Richard


Day, Stephen
Hordern, Sir Peter


Devlin, Tim
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)






Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Redwood, John


Janman, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Latham, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speed, Keith


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stevens, Lewis


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trippier, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Roger
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Tony
Wheeler, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wilshire, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Page, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Patnick, Irvine



Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. David Maclean.


Porter, David (Waveney)

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

6.28

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am anxious to be brief. We had a long debate on Second Reading, we had a longish debate again today while considering some of the amendments that have been tabled. I have already mentioned the constructive contributions that have been made in the various debates by hon. Members.
I am anxious to outline three main points. First, the primary legislation to amend paragraph 8 of schedule 31 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is necessary if expenditure plans for UDCs are to be carried through. The Bill removes grant-in-aid received by UDCs from the cumulative total that is subject to the statutory limit. In the Government's view the combination of the public expenditure planning process and Parliament's various controls over voted money are fully adequate in

themselves. A further statutory limit of this nature is unneccessary and is an inappropriate means of controlling the grant paid to a collection of bodies.
Secondly, the Bill defines the borrowing that is subject to this statutory limitation.
Thirdly, given the role of borrowing in UDC financing, it sets a lower statutory limit on the total amount of outstanding borrowing by UDCs.
This is a simple Bill, designed for all UDCs to carry on their vital task of regenerating urban areas. It rationalises the statutory financial limit while retaining a proper degree of parliamentary control.

Mr. William O'Brien: I do not intend to detain the House long. Suffice to say that the business in Committee covered the important point that we wanted to raise—the involvement of local authorities in UDCs and the great need for local communities' interests to be taken into consideration on any development. The amendment that we tabled in Committee expounded our concerns about the financing of UDCs.
Reference has been made to the introduction of mini UDCs, and we hoped that the Minister would give more information about their involvement and introduction. Sadly, that has not been forthcoming, but we are advised that we may receive some information shortly. Again, I plead with the Minister for more involvement with local authorities. A number of hon. Members who have spoken today and in Committee have served on local authorities. I hope that local authorities will be more involved in any further introduction of UDCs.
Hon. Members have expressed doubt about whether there would be any impact on or advantage to local communities by introducing further UDCs. Reference has been made to the rate support grant orders that were administered under a former Labour Government. I should make it clear that rate support grant orders under the Labour Government were more substantial than they are under the present one. I hope that the Minister will consider allowing local authorities to have some input into the development of UDCs.
As to local authorities and their partnership with UDCs, I must tell the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that there is ample evidence that that partnership is developing in inner cities and urban areas. A splendid understanding has developed between local authorities and private developers, which has led to much co-operation between local authorities and the private sector. There is no reason why that co-operation should not be allowed to continue. A substantial number of Labour-controlled authorities have entered into agreements with private operators to develop town centres and urban areas. I make a plea that that co-operation should be allowed to continue.
If local authorities were allowed sufficient resources, there could be continuing co-operation and a greater interest in community development on behalf of people in those communities. It is important to encourage development and urban regeneration in local authority areas.
The Minister referred to the Tory party manifesto. One must take note of what was expressed in it. It said that the Tories want to set up UDCs where local authorities are failing to tackle the problems. Will the Minister say what local authorities are failing to tackle the problem, and


perhaps we could analyse why they are experiencing difficulties with urban regeneration in their areas? It is unfair and not good practice to commit local authorities to redevelopment in urban areas because of the Tory manifesto. Can we identify how local authorities have been failing in their responsibilities? Will the Minister explain why the Government believe that local authorities have not been carrying out urban redevelopment?
If local authorities were given the same resources as UDCs, we would obtain better results for communities than is presently the case with regard to mini UDCs. I hope that the Minister will take note of what the Tory manifesto says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) asked about the introduction of UDCs and what, if a local authority suggested that there was no need for a mini UDC in its area, the outcome would be. The Minister replied that there would be a mandatory introduction of UDCs if local authorities objected to such a development. However, will the Minister take into consideration the interests of the community? My hon. Friend referred to a letter from Martin Laing in The Timeson 6 October. It said:
The success of London Docklands, which is a uniquely favoured area next to one of the world's major financial centres, should not lead the Government into believing or expecting that £1 of public expenditure will produce the same £4 to £6 of private investment in less favoured areas".
He referred also to the deprived areas of the north.
Against that background, I suggest that there should be greater consultation of and involvement with local authorities because everyone in them — particularly in the north, but throughout the United Kingdom — is concerned about what is taking place in communities. Martin Laing said that the Government should not model UDCs on the London Docklands development corporation because they will not work out the same. Those are the words not of Labour Members, but of the chairman of John Laing plc.
I appeal to the Minister to consider the issues with regard to urban regeneration and communities. The people who have been elected in these areas want to bring about their redevelopment. The Minister has seen the results of what can happen if there is co-operation between local authorities and private operators. I hope that such co-operation will be allowed to continue. I hope that some of the resources given to mini urban development corporations and major urban development corporations will be directed towards local authorities and that they will be given a fair opportunity to develop their areas. It is important to allow local authorities to develop their communities. I hope that the Minister will consider the points that we have raised.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Members of Sheffield city council are allowed four minutes to speak. As a member of that council, I know that if one's speech is not finished within four minutes the silence is deafening. I shall try to finish this speech within four minutes.
Land and buildings in inner cities are a jigsaw of ownership and problems. Somehow, the road layout and services do not match what is needed now or in the future. A method of bringing them into common ownership for redevelopment is needed, and urban development corporations provide it. As my hon. Friend the Member

for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) stated in similar vein, although my area has not agreed to have a UDC, it would be grateful to have a UDC, whether it be mini, maxi, GT, GL, saloon or estate. We are prepared to accept one, whatever its form.
Sheffield has been making noises about the form of an urban development authority. As one who lives in Sheffield and works in the east end of the city, from which the heart of its former industry has been torn, I appreciate the fact that there are derelict buildings and derelict land and the remains of the names of famous companies, which are either in the shadows or no longer exist. Rejuvenation is necessary. The only way in which I can envisage that happening in Sheffield, if what is happening there is symptomatic of the problems in other areas, is through urban development corporations. I hope that Sheffield will be considered for one.
The Opposition's argument is that the pudding must be tested, examined and improved. That will not give the impetus needed in inner cities and inner urban areas to enable them to progress. The Government are prepared to prime the pump and businesses are prepared to set up in those areas. In the east end of Sheffield, developers are prepared to move in, with council approval, to create jobs in a £160 million scheme. Those jobs will spin off into the outer urban areas, to suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, utilities, transport—the list goes on. That does not differ from the UDC concept. I hope that the funds that are made available will be flexible. By "flexible" I do not mean that the money should be made to go a long way. I hope that money will be found for other areas.
My hon. Friend the Minister, when he tours Sheffield on 7 December, will see that something is needed to bring the city back to its former glory. Sheffield is not on its own; other areas need the injection of an urban development corporation to return to their former prosperity. Sheffield is bidding to stage the World Student Games, and Government co-operation and funding are needed. Sheffield needs some form of cash through an urban development corporation. Other areas are in a similar position. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to support the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: The speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) illustrates the dilemma of hon. Members in dealing with the Bill. We all want to talk about urban development corporations. But the Bill is not about that; it is about how the Government will be enabled to finance them. The Bill does not contain a penny more for UDCs. The estimates deal with that. The Bill gives the Minister power to provide bigger globules of money without coming to the House. Despite my hon. Friends' aspirations, I fear that the Bill, in giving those greater globules of money, will be contrary to the interests of local government and against the interests of parliamentary scrutiny, despite what the Minister said.
More money means more cash means more power to the Minister in bigger blobs. It means fewer statutory instruments to come before the House, less scrutiny and less "glasnost", to use the present jargon. But that is what the House is about in terms of democracy. Although I understand my hon. Friends' aspirations, in view of my experience of the London Docklands development corporation, I regard the Bill as a step backward in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and expenditure of taxes. Hon.
Members have lost sight of that fundamental point, but it is worth putting it on record on Third Reading, because that is what Third Reading is about.
The Bill will give the Minister greater arbitrary powers. He will be able to scatter patronage around and to consult all sorts of people with ideas in local government, asking, "Would you think of this? Would you think of that?" If I were the Minister, I would scatter these mini UDCs around like sweeties from a tin. I asked the Minister whether he could tell us how many mini UDCs there were, but he did not give the answer. I wonder whether he would like to give it now.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) asked that question as well. I am certainly not in a position to give the number. I simply stick by what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: that we hope to make an announcement before the end of the year.

Mr. Spearing: I am not surprised by that. It probably supports my thesis, which, I hasten to add, is based not on any leaks from Whitehall but on my knowledge of how these things happen.
I raised these problems before and the Minister replied on 3 July 1987 in column 193 of Hansard.He said that £7·9 million was spent by the LDDC on consultancies. Imagine an area in London the size of Hyde park, Kensington gardens and Green park put together and being given planning permission for development without a public inquiry having been held. That is what we face in the royal docks in the area given over to planning for the LDDC. Some of the orders made under this legislation will not apply to that area, but that is the sort of animal that is rising statutorily from section 135 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
The Bill involves statutory slippage. Clearly, we are losing control over the way in which the hard-taxed taxpayers' money is spent. This legislation will act in a derogatory way towards local government. But it is not just this legislation. The housing action trusts may be given powers by Parliament and will probably act in much the same way as the UDCs. The White Paper said that they would, although it remains to be seen whether they will get such huge sums — up to £100 million — without being subject to parliamentary control. The money will not go far if there is a 15 per cent. tax on new build—just as there is 15 per cent. VAT on repairs. We may have to face that next week or in the new year if the European Court imposes that decision on the House.

Mr. Steen: It is probably fitting that I am the last Conservative Back Bencher to speak in the debate. Unlike some Opposition Members, I do not ask that the Bill be scrapped. I support it. Under the previous legislation, expenditure in inner urban areas could not exceed £600 million or a greater sum not exceeding £800 million as specified by the Secretary of State, by order subject to approval by the House. We are talking about putting more public money into urban areas without reference to the House, and I have nothing against that.
I have been a Member for over 12 years, and during that time the House has debated urban areas and inner cities ad nauseam. We have had the urban aid programme,

community development projects, the young volunteer force, neighbourhood studies, quality of life studies, inner-urban area studies, references to the cycle of their deprivation, comprehensive community programmes, partnerships — I do not know what has happened to them—a White Paper in 1977 on the inner cities, the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, enterprise zones and freeports, and there are now urban development corporations.
There has been a huge spectacle of Government-financed schemes. Some of them have been very good. However, the inner cities continue to decline. They look worse and the people who live in them are deprived. The urban development corporations, which I fully support, represent another means of pouring public money into the inner cities. I remain unconvinced that they will have better results than the other schemes on which tens of thousands of millions of pounds have been spent. I would support the Minister wherever he cares to take me. I would support him in any worthwhile scheme because he is a Minister with flair and imagination, as well as courage. However, I question whether the UDCs will lead to a greater revival of the inner cities than other schemes have achieved.
One of the beauties of the urban development corporations, evident in the London Docklands development corporation area, is that they have attracted private funds. Their importance must lie in the way in which they have levered private money behind public money. No doubt the Minister would say that he is so enthusiastic about urban development corporations because of the leverage of private money behind public money. What interests me is whether the leverage could be in a different form and whether the funds could be used through the urban development corporations in better ways. For example, perhaps the Government could provide money to be used by the urban development corporations in the form of industrial revenue bonds or municipal bonds—a subject raised during Question Time this afternoon. In that way, private investment could be pumped into inner-city areas. Private individuals, companies and institutions could invest in the inner cities by purchasing tax-exempt bonds.
I question — although not critically — whether £800 million or £1,000 million pumped into inner areas will really change them. Of course, if we pump £100 million into the environment it is bound to change, but that will not necessarily revive the inner cities. I believe that we shall not revive the inner cities by pouring public money into them. We shall revive them if that public money is poured in with private sector money coming in behind and if the people who live there are involved not only in decision-making but in helping themselves. The Conservative Governments philosophy is to help people to stand on their own feet and to help them to help themselves. I support the urban development corporations but there is a danger that the corporations will exclude the community and will simply go into areas and do their own thing. If that happens, areas may be tidied up or cleaned up and new buildings may be built, but we shall not achieve the revival that is so much needed in the run-down inner-city areas.
My experience of the House is that when one is asked to speak for a long time, the Whips are very clear about what one should be doing, and that the same applies when one is asked to speak for a short time. I can see by the


expression on your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have perhaps said enough to make my point plain. The Minister is smiling, and it is quite clear that he agrees with some of my comments. I support the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that pouring more money into the inner cities will not solve problems.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Nobody can deny that the inner cities need regenerating, that part of that process requires money and that some of that money will have to come from the taxpayer, via the Government. It is quite clear that some of the money must come from the private sector, too. However, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, the Bill does not concern any of those propositions. It deals with the regulation of the process by which public money goes into the UDCs. As the Minister knows, he and I take different views about the mechanism that he has chosen in the Bill.
In 1980, when the original procedure was set up, and in 1985, when the procedure was amended by further legislation, we gave the Government the power to make £800 million available. My hon. Friends and I argued that the decision about the amount of taxpayers' money that should be made available via the Government to the urban development corporations as a means of regenerating the inner cities should be made by the House. That is why, on Report, I sought to amend the Bill to include a provision to give us that controlling mechanism. The amendment was defeated and the Bill remains unamended.
My scepticism, doubts and dissatisfaction remain. The Bill does not provide for sufficient scrutiny. As the hon. Member for Newham, South said, it will place too much power in the hands of the Government and not enough in the hands of other agencies. The Minister will know that my view is taken on the basis not of remote observation but of practical day-to-day participation in the life of a constituency where a development corporation has been at work for six years. It is noticeable and interesting that the people who are most critical of development corporations are those who live in and represent the areas in which they operate. Those who observe from afar are less critical.
I shall not congratulate the Minister as much as some of his Back Benchers have congratulated him, but I respect his commitment to his job and his enthusiasm. However, the Government's approach is sometimes in danger of being superficial. The time that they spend on the inner cities is sometimes encapsulated in timetables, such as the Minister's timetable for his visit to the London Docklands development corporation last week. His office was kind enough to send me a copy. It reads as follows:
"10.30 You arrive at the Visitors Centre, Canary Wharf, Isle of Dogs to be met by Chairman and Chief Executive. Coffee. View. Audio visual.
11.30 Depart for helicopter tour over Docklands at 11.40
11.55 Ground tour of Docklands.
1.00 Lunch aboard the Dutch sailing barge 'Leven'.
2.30 Depart."
I do not think that the Minister can have met hundreds — he certainly cannot have met thousands — of real docklands residents or workers. Like the Prime Minister at the beginning of the general election campaign, Ministers are in danger of falling into the trap of seeing those who manage developments without speaking to the recipients of the developments—the local residents.
On Second Reading I put to the Minister the figures that showed a net loss of jobs in London docklands since 1981.1 note that the Department of the Environment press release about the Minister's speech to the CBI last week, which must be true, says:
He drew the conference's attention to Urban Development Corporations which have brought new life to areas which have suffered serious decline. And he urged the conference to look at London's Docklands and the 10,000 jobs created there.
That is perfectly true, but the Minister did not tell the CBI the net figure for jobs created because it would have been a negative number. As people in America have discovered, half the truth is often nowhere near the whole truth.
It is interesting to compare unemployment in the docklands boroughs with unemployment in the area of the docklands boroughs covered by the LDDC since it was set up. In Tower Hamlets and Southwark, unemployment rose by 42·5 per cent. and 49 per cent. respectively. Those are large figures. In September 1987 the figure for Southwark was 19·1 per cent.—more than it was in 1983, once the docklands had got going, when it was 17·8 per cent. The same applies in Tower Hamlets and Newham. There has been no marked decline in unemployment.
The most telling figure is that relating to the areas of the boroughs in the development corporation area. The number of unemployed people has increased in two of the three boroughs. In Southwark the figure has increased marginally from 1,506 to 1,519. In Newham, the figure has increased from 1,669 to 1,789. Overall, the number of unemployed in London docklands areas has risen from 6,997 in 1983 to 7,012 in 1987.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not at all surprising to us in docklands? People outside think that the development corporation s working for local people, but we know that the LDDCs plans are designed not to help local people but to enable developers to come in and get as much as they can. Therefore, we hope Ihat any mini UDCs elsewhere will have different purposes.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is an indicator that, even though there are party political differences, there has never been a difference in understanding of or reaction to the LDDC between the four London docklands Members of Parliament. They have been equally critical, for the same reasons, because they have observed the same consequences. I wish to make a couple of points, which I hope the Minister will take on board as they reflect the concerns that we have expressed over many years.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has raised an additional point, but what he said was not true. The authority currently controlled by the alliance has, while being controlled by it, worked extremely closely with the LDDC. I am therefore surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not make that point on behalf of his party. Of course, in the past there was animosity, but we hope that that is gradually being blown away.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make comparisons, he must compare like with like. My figures are that more than 10,000 jobs have been created since 1981, with only 3,500 lost. If he is taking 1981 as the base date, that is the comparison that he should make.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister and I debated the figures on Second Reading. He knows that many of the new jobs are


transferred jobs—jobs that bring workers with them. The number of jobs created and available for the local work force has actually declined. I am happy to go through the figures with him, but the ones that I have seen —they are Government figures, not my figures—show that the number of new jobs has declined, not risen. That is a severe indictment of the past six years.
The Minister's point about co-operation and collaboration is, rightly, very important. We must ensure that we maximise future benefits for the local communities—in labour, housing, environment and regeneration. That is why there was such a furious debate yesterday, during the Local Government Bill Committee, about the local labour clause in relation to local government powers. We wait with interest to hear what the officials said at the European Commission today when it debated that very subject.
I and my colleagues have always argued—and it is why Tower Hamlets has practised it—that partnership is needed. There should be a three-way partnership in regenerating all inner cities and urban areas — central Government, local government and other agencies, be they the private sector, voluntary bodies or the like. It is because local authorities have no power to intervene in the docklands area decisions and in the development corporations that the concept of development corporations, as presently constructed, has met with objections.
It is true that my colleagues in Tower Hamlets have co-operated and nominated someone to sit on the board. They have worked with the LDDC much more than the Labour administration in Southwark — an administration that I have criticised since the day I was elected to this House. However, there has been no real partnership and, because of that failure, I and my colleagues are unhappy about the Bill.
I understand that an announcement about further UDCs is imminent. It may include a provision for the LDDC area to be extended. If that is true, it would be a significant announcement. Whatever areas the Government have in mind, I ask that, before making any final announcement, the Minister should put the proposals out to consultation — the areas, the budget and the corporate plan—so that there can be real partnership in the further extension of urban development.
I am not against urban development, but I am against a change in the structure that takes away accountability. As I said, if the Minister is not prepared to concede that, the matter should be more accountable, for that reason specifically. I and my colleagues will divide the House.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 186, Noes 20.

Division No. 82]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Allason, Rupert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Benyon, W.
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick





Burns, Simon
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butcher, John
Knapman, Roger


Butler, Chris
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Butterfill, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knowles, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knox, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lang, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Latham, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cope, John
Lord, Michael


Cran, James
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McLoughlin, Patrick


Curry, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mans, Keith


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Marland, Paul


Devlin, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mates, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dunn, Bob
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dykes, Hugh
Moate, Roger


Evennett, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fallon, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Favell, Tony
Nelson, Anthony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Neubert, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forman, Nigel
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forth, Eric
Page, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Franks, Cecil
Patnick, Irvine


Freeman, Roger
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


French, Douglas
Pawsey, James


Fry, Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Powell, William (Corby)


Goodlad, Alastair
Raffan, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gower, Sir Raymond
Rhodes James, Robert


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Riddick, Graham


Gregory, Conal
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Grist, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Ground, Patrick
Ryder, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hanley, Jeremy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hannam, John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Harris, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Haselhurst, Alan
Speed, Keith


Hayward, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Steen, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Stevens, Lewis


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Holt, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Thurnham, Peter


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Trippier, David


Irvine, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jack, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Jackson, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Janman, Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann






Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. David Maclean and Mr. David Lightbown.




NOES


Alton, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ashton, Joe
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Beith, A. J.
Nellist, Dave


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Clay, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wallace, James


Cryer, Bob
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)



Heffer, Eric S.
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Malcolm Bruce.


Kirkwood, Archy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Scottish Development Agency Bill

Not amended, considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Lang]

Mr. John Maxton: I assume that the Minister has moved the Third Reading formally because he wishes to respond to the points that hon. Members will make as the debate unfolds, although I do not think it will take too long. Indeed, had the Government Whips acted with any flexibility or sense of responsibility, the whole thing would have been over a long time ago. But they insisted on moving the closure on Second Reading, thus taking the debate into a second day and running it on much longer than was necessary. It was entirely the fault of the Government Whips and had nothing to do with the Opposition.
This debate gives us an opportunity to repeat some important points about the Scottish Development Agency. There is still a question in the minds of many Scottish people and in the Scottish press about regional aid in Scotland and its relationship to the SDA. At the recent forum organised by the Scottish Council at Gleneagles, when all the great and the good were present—

Mr. Alex Salmond: Where was the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Maxton: I was not present.

Mr. Salmond: I was there.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman may be included among the great and the good in Scotland, but I am not. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was there, and although 1 offered to replace him, he did not accept my offer.
Following that conference, there was confusion between what the Department of Trade and Industry believes and what the Scottish Office believes is happening about regional aid in Scotland. Neither on Second Reading nor during the Committee stage of the Bill did Ministers clarify who is responsible for regional aid policy in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland insisted that he was in charge. Lord Young, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, rightly insists that he, and no one else, is in charge of regional aid in Scotland.
Is a review of regional aid being undertaken? The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State say that there is no review, but Lord Young said clearly at Gleneagles:
I am examining from the ground up all our regional aid.
He intends to examine everything that is done in his Department, so there must be a question mark over the future of regional aid in Scotland. There is also a question mark over the amount of money that is being spent by the SDA. The Minister must give us a commitment about the extra £24 million which the Secretary of State boasted he will spend on regional policy in Scotland. Some of us believe that that £24 million is merely roll-over from underspend in this financial year and has nothing to do with new money, but the Minister may wish to dispute that. We shall be interested to see how he intends to spend the money.
Regional development grant is not the way in which to spend money now, because it is difficult to obtain it


quickly. The Minister should allocate that £24 million between the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That would allow a much better use of the £24 million than might otherwise be the case. I hope that the Minister will clear up that matter and, even at this late stage, make it clear that we should be spending more money on the Scottish Development Agency.
Many hon. Members have commented during our various debates on the cuts in real terms that have been made in the money that is provided by the Government to the SDA. The Minister's reply has always been that the SDA has been receiving more money from its investments, so it is generating its own income and we should not interfere with it. It is marvellous that the SDA is generating its own finance, but that should allow it to do more, because the Government should allocate increasing amounts of money to keep pace with inflation; then the SDA will generate more money, which will allow more money to be invested in the Scottish economy to create jobs. That is what the SDA should be about.
The Government seem to take a different line. They are schizophrenic about the SDA. They want it to generate some jobs so that they can boast about them but, at the same time, the SDA runs contrary to all their views on the free market economy. So they want to push it into the background and downgrade it as much as possible, while using its facilities to create what jobs they can.
In conclusion, I want to quote from articles in The Scotsmanand the Glasgow Heraldthat have appeared in the past two weeks. They concern the future of the Scottish Development Agency under its new director, Mr. Iain Robertson. According to Mr. Alf Young, who is a respected and unbiased economics journalist in Scotland, and who wrote a long article in the Glasgow Heraldon Monday about the SDA, there is speculation in the SDA about which the Government should say something to the House. Staff in the SDA headquarters in Glasgow are worried about whether they will continue in their jobs. As an hon. Member representing a constituency in Glasgow, I am concerned about any loss of jobs from the area, although I accept that there may be a need for some devolution of SDA functions outwards to other parts of Scotland. I do not believe that anyone would object to such a devolution of power to other parts of Scotland to allow SDA decisions on investment to be taken at more local levels than they are now. However, if the other rumours are correct, we are right to express concern about them. One of the articles says:
But, coming as it does in the wake of the Treasury/ Scottish Office review into the work of the SDA, a root-and-branch restructuring will inevitably raise fears that the agency's role, in a Thatcherite economic climate, is again going to change. Those who claim to detect within the SDA a power struggle between old-style interventionists, loyal to the ethos which led to it being set up in 1975, and a market-orientated faction, committed to the Mathewson view that the SDA should work with the grain of market forces, will be watching closely for signs of which side emerges in the ascendancy.
Others, who believe that battle was won some time back by the free-marketeers, will be looking for evidence of any hidden agenda that Robertson, a career civil servant before he came to Bothwell Street, might be hatching in collaboration with the Scottish Office to push the SDA further into the arms of the private sector.

It would concern us greatly if there were any movement to put the SDA yet further into the hands of the private sector. Later in the article, speaking of the investment department of the SDA, Alf Young writes:
Investment, even when its own portfolio of £26·2m invested in 127 companies is boosted by the £2m a year the agency puts into small businesses, may not have a long-term place in Robertson's scheme of things. It has, arguably, become much more risk averse since the days of the Stonefield Vehicles saga (although the SDA's exposure in the receivership of Livingston-based Integrated Power Semiconductors runs to £2m).
The investment division's guidelines now hardly distinguish it from many private sector sources of finance, and there is open talk in Bothwell Street that it might be privatised, either as an operational unit or by progressively liquidating its portfolio.
If the investment side should liquidate its portfolio, or hand it over in some way to the private sector, the money that that investment portfolio generates to allow the SDA to invest in our companies will no longer exist. There will therefore be a general cutback in the SDA's ability to carry out its functions. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to put our minds at rest about the article's implications, and make it clear that any restructuring of the SDA will be an internal one, perhaps to improve the managerial structure of the organisation. There is no doubt that parts of it have grown, like Topsy, all over the place, and it needs tightening up. but the Minister should not allow parts of it to be privatised, or allow it to liquidate its entire portfolio, and he should give us a commitment that the SDA will be able to use its money directly for investing in industry and developing jobs. Far from retaining it in its present form, we hope that the Minister might now see that the SDA has been a success since 1975 through its intervention in the economy, and it requires more money and greater expansion so that it can create yet more jobs in the Scottish economy—because under this Government they are badly needed.

Mr. Alex Salmond: This is an opportunity to reiterate some of the points from our earlier proceedings on the Bill, which the Minister has still to answer effectively.
My first point — it leads on from what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said—is that there is no real question of who is in charge of regional policy in Scotland. Undoubtedly, Whitehall is in charge of it, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland. The real point about regional aid policy over the past 10 years is not who is in charge, but the remarkable decline in the regional aid budget to less than half what it was 10 years ago. I accept that part of that decline occurred before the Government came to office in 1979. It has been paralleled by the decline in the SDA's own budget.
Whatever is said about the SDA's overall budget, the Minister must acknowledge — it is in a parliamentary answer — that the SDA's contribution from the Government has declined in real terms from £104 million when the Government came to power to £89 million this year. That represents a real decline of 15 per cent. In Committee, the Minister described that as a sign of success. No doubt he also considers it a sign of success that, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said, the Government and Scottish Office have underspent by £20 million on regional development grant this year. Does the Minister want to square the circle and explain how an


underspend in regional development grant fits the picture that he paints of the Scottish economy moving forward with plenty of investment and investors wanting to take up regional development grant?
As has rightly been said, the Secretary of State for Scotland has been claiming widely that he has gained another £24 million for next year's regional development grant budget. However, that is merely a roll-over from the underspend of last year. The Secretary of State for Scotland must be the first person ever to get into serious trouble through picking his own pocket!
The vision of the Scottish economy that the Government seek to portray does not square with the facts. In terms of overall industrial production, the Scottish economy is still performing at a lower level than in 1980 and its unemployment level is the second highest on the British mainland. Even in the review of the Scottish Development Agency carried out by the Industry Department for Scotland and the Treasury, which strove desperately to say nice things about the Scottish economy under this Government—the best they could offer was that things were no better, they were much the same. Page 22 says:
In 1984 gross domestic product per head (in Scotland) was 96 per cent. of the United Kingdom average compared with 97 per cent. in 1975".
when the SDA was established.
The reality is that Scotland is last out of the recession in the United Kingdom, and instead of being increased to combat these problems, the SDA budget is declining in real terms, as are the regional development grants. The Government have completely missed the economic opportunity of which the Scottish Development Agency was established 10 years ago to take advantage.
My second point is a recurring theme in the contributions to debates such as this by the Scottish National party. It is about the direction of SDA funding. Surely the saddest thing in the review of the SDA, about which I have spoken, was the revelation that over the past 10 years the net proportion of the SDA budget in equity risk investment in the Scottish economy has declined from 25 per cent. to a mere 2 per cent. I should like the Minister to explain how, with a net expenditure on investment of about £2 million, the SDA can seriously expect to regenerate the Scottish economy. There seems to be no real reason for decline, because the analysis of the effectiveness of SDA investment gave the agency more or less a clean bill of health.
Even on the tiny investment budget that can be deployed by the Scottish Development Agency, the review calculated that, between 1981 and 1985, the agency successfully created about 10,000 net jobs at a cost per job of about £1,000. That is a remarkable bargain, and surely it is an argument for a vast expansion in the SDA budget so that it can take the opportunity offered by the sectors of growth in the Scottish economy that it has been doing so much work to identify.
My third point deals with the direction of Government economic policy in Scotland. Despite what the Minister said on Second Reading about turning the emphasis to developing indigenous companies, the reality is that the only thrust of Government economic policy in Scotland is to attract mobile inward investment from overseas. In part that is welcome, and nobody would seriously deny that inward investment can bring great benefits to an economy. However, it is all a matter of proportion and many people

in Scotland know to their cost that an economy that is totally dependent on mobile inward investment is especially vulnerable when the winds of international recession blow.
We would like to see from the Minister a real commitment to developing indigenous companies in Scotland. There are some signs that his words on Second Reading will not be carried through into practice. He may well remember that on Second Reading many hon. Members expressed concern about the PRIDE and DRAW schemes. These are important schemes in the rural areas of Scotland. They have small budgets, but have proved important for rural workshops and for giving grants to rural businesses. Elsewhere, the Minister said that the schemes were to be refinanced, and announced a budget of £5 million over three years. My understanding is that, far from being enhanced, the grant element in the schemes is to be drastically cut. I should like some assurance from the Minister that that will not be the case.
If the hon. Member cannot give that assurance, at least he should give some hope to the many small businesses in Scotland which applied under the previous scheme. They were left in the lurch because of the exhaustion of resources and had the rug pulled from under them. The Minister has said that those businesses will get priority in the application of funds for the new scheme. Can he also give us an assurance that they will get treatment on no worse terms than they would have received under the previous grant element in the scheme?
My final comment is about a wider matter than those that are dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to wider matters. On Third reading we must restrict ourselves to what is in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Salmond: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly do so. Sixty-two Scottish Members would like to see a substantial increase in the Scottish Development Agency budget. As a public sector body, the agency should have a prime role in leading Scotland out of the recession. To do that it needs an adequate budget, and that means a vast increase in its present budget. Despite the support of the vast majority of Scottish MPs, we cannot bring our views to bear upon the Government or the Minister.
It may be that the Minister will have a remarkable conversion, such as he has had in the past on the Scottish Development Agency. He was converted to the inward investment role of the agency that he now trumpets although in 1980 he once was very much against it. Until Scottish MPs can provide the answer to the question of how we can bring our majority will to bear on the Government upon the subject of the Scottish Development Agency, or any other Scottish subject, we will not be successful in bringing about the revival of the Scottish economy that we so desperately want to see.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to raise one matter that has possibly not been covered as it might have been. It is the matter of the boundaries on which grants are given. I shall give a concrete example concerning the huge and successful Uniroyal tyre factory at Newbridge in


the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingstone (Mr. Cook). The bulk of the work force in that factory comes from my constituency. The problem is whether grants should be given on the basis of geographical position or whether some leeway should be given in a case where the work force comes from an area where there is considerable unemployment—a scheduled area such as Linlithgow.
There is a related problem, and perhaps the Scottish Office could look at it. It concerns discussions with the Department of Transport about the very serious Community directive on tyre tread depths. I put down a question on 24 November in which I asked the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has done on accident incidence relative to tyre tread depth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it very difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: They relate to the question of help for a factory such as that of Uniroyal. There is a way out of this problem and it is by asking the Department of Transport to reconsider its attitude to the European directive on tyre tread depth. The problem would be solved if the depth was brought up to the 2 mm that every Government Department asks of its own vehicles. No Minister's car has a tyre tread depth of less than 2 mm. If that was done it would be a great help to factories such as that of Uniroyal and to the tyre-making industry in Britain. Other matters — such as road safety — would be out of order in discussing this Bill.
There is a problem here and the Department of Transport knows about it. I believe that the Scottish Office knows about it and it has arisen this week in acute form. I do not ask for a reply now, because that would be unreasonable, but perhaps the Scottish Office would consider the matter. It will receive a letter from me in the morning about this and I hope that it will reflect on it.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): This small technical Bill has now reached its final stages in the House and as envisaged in 1981 when the Government amended the original provisions in the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, it has given hon. Members the opportunity to examine and discuss the activities of the agency in some detail.
Over the years, the agency has shown its value as a flexible and responsive instrument for encouraging essential changes in the Scottish economy and significant improvements to the environment of Scotland. In the light of recent publicity in the Scottish press about the reports of possible changes to the organisation of the agency, it is not surprising that that should be raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is primarily a matter for the agency, as it is an administrative matter.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers generally welcome and endorse the principles behind the changes to the structure proposed by Mr. Robertson, the chief executive. The Scottish Office will be liaising with the agency on the implementation of the changes and subject to clarification on some points of detail, we see no reason

why the changes should not fulfil the desired aims of bringing the agency's structure more in line with its corporate strategy and so improve its delivery mechanism.
I want to elaborate on one or two of the ways in which the changes will be made. The hon. Member for Cathcart supported what he saw as the devolution of some services in order to improve their delivery. That is a desirable development and it has been said that a number of regional offices will be set up in Scotland. The agency intends to create new directorates for enterprise development to pull together the agency's sectoral work on industry and on higher value added services. It also intends to set up a directorate for urban renewal. Those are useful and worthwhile initiatives.
No staff redundancies are planned. There should be improved lines of responsibility, less bureaucracy and, I hope, more job fulfilment and a greater feeling that each individual employed by the agency is contributing personally and directly to its success. That is part of the purpose of the chief executive's plans which I understand he proposes to develop in more detail when he announces his proposals later this week.
Far from implying change in the agency's role, the changes in administration respond to change in the agency's current work and the balance of its priorities and the allocation of its budget. There is no hidden agenda. There is a sharpening up of effectiveness which will bring it closer to its customers as it is a commercial customer-driven organisation.
The hon. Member for Cathcart attempted to lead me into a discussion on regional aid. Bearing in mind your strictures about sticking strictly to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I generously sought to respond to the hon. Gentleman's inquiries in Committee and on Second Reading, on this occasion I will let the issue of regional aid pass. For the same reason, sadly, I will not be able to comment on the queries raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), although his points will have been noted in Hansard.

Mr. Maxton: Before the Minister leaves this point about the restructuring of the agency carried out by Mr. Iain Robertson, will he assure us that there will be no privatisation of the investment department either through direct privatisation by selling it off, or by running down its portfolio of investment?

Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no such plans at present to do that. The administration and organisation of the agency is a matter for the agency itself.

Mr. Maxton: I accept that selling the agency off through direct privatisation would not have anything to do with the agency, as it could not do that without legislation. However, presumably the agency could sell off its portfolio without direct Government involvement or legislation.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is putting ideas into my head. Certainly the agency can dispose of its investments as it thinks fit in the light of prevailing market circumstances. That point brings me to the statistics about the budget and investment.
The agency has been disposing of its investments in increasing numbers. This point may underline the difficulty expressed by the hon. Member for Cathcart over the agency's gross and net budget. At the risk of boring the


House, however briefly, I want to repeat the figures. In 1986–87 figures, the gross net budgets in 1978–79, the last years for which the Labour party was responsible for the administration of the agency, were £124·9 million and £102·9 million respectively. In 1986–87, the figures were £130·9 million and £89·2 million respectively. That represents an increase of 4–8 per cent.
It is also significant to explain — this answers the point about the figures raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) — that the self-financing element of the agency's expenses, in other words the difference between the gross and net figures, has increased from 20 per cent. in 1978–79 to 40 per cent. this year. Not only has gross budget funding increased, but we are also getting very much better value for money in the use of the receipts and the recirculation of funds.

Mr. Salmond: In the figures that he has just given, does the Minister accept that the Government's contribution to the SDA has declined by 15 per cent?

Mr. Lang: I have not quoted the figure, but the net budget was £99·9 million in 1985–86 figures and those were the figures used by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The figure is £86·6 million in 1986–87. Far from "admitting" that, I am proclaiming it. That underlines the growing success of the agency's use of resources which has led to that achievement.
I want to provide one or two investment figures to help the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The hon. Gentleman is worried about the fact that, as he alleges, the proportion of the agency's budget going to investment has decreased from 25 per cent. to 2 per cent. The plain fact is that the figures that he used for 1976 were the provision for investment. The actual outturn was very much less than that. In 1986–87, the outturn, taking account of the reinvestment, of receipts was very much higher. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figure of 2 per cent. from. It bears no relation to the actual investment figures.
I want to describe the present trend of investment over the past three years. The amount invested over the past three years has been £6·3 million, £6·2 million and £7·96

million respectively and that has catalysed investment from the private sector of £30·9 million, £72·54 million and £106·7 million. Investment created or protected 4,483 jobs in 1984–85, 5,344 in 1985–86 and 5,619 in 1986–87. That is a remarkable and encouraging story. The agency now holds investments in 820 companies most of which is in the form of relatively small sums because they are investments placed by the agency's small business division.
I believe that I had better not bore the House with more statistics as they have been well ventilated over the past few weeks. The value of agency expenditure can be seen anywhere in Scotland by looking at areas which were once derelict and have now been brought back into constructive use, by new factories occupied by profitable firms, by the existence of high technology industries attracted through the efforts of Locate in Scotland and by our steadily increasing small business sector which has benefited from the agency's advice and assistance.
Over and above this, there is the change of attitude in Scotland which the agency, in accordance with the broad strategic guidance laid down by this Government, has helped to bring about. I refer to the increasing involvement of the private sector in areas which have previously been considered to be the preserve of the public sector; to the increasing realisation by the private sector that the agency is a partner rather than a leader, and to the improvement in Scotland's image abroad as a place which, because of its environment and the skills of its work force, merits major investment.
In order to continue with these important tasks and to complement fully the effects of both the Governments nationwide economic policy and their regional policy it is, of course, necessary to provide the statutory basis for the continued funding of the agency. That is the purpose of the Bill. Although, as I have previously said, the Bill does not determine the annual budget of the agency, which is established separately and in the light of the Government's overall spending priorities, it is essential in order to provide a basis of funding from which those budgets can be met. I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Food Protection

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1893), dated 5th November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved. 
The Order consolidates the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) (No. 2) Order 1987 and the seven subsequent amendment orders, none of which I will quote, into one order. It does not change their effect or introduce any new restrictions, but it might be helpful if I remind the House that these are the orders under which we were able to carry out the restrictions on movement of sheep as a result of the Chernobyl accident. The matter has been discussed on several previous occasions. The consequences of the terrible accident in Chernobyl have been considerable and people are rightly most concerned. If it is convenient to the House, I hope to speak about one aspect of the order, which has already been raised today, and leave any points which are raised and any other comments to the end of the debate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: After the Chernobyl accident, the National Radiological Protection Board estimated that 40 persons—I use the statistical extrapolation — would die of cancer induced by the accident. In the light of the fact that the Government now wish to raise the bq/kg limit, and the fact that the NRPB has changed its assessment of what constitutes a permissible limit, do the Government now wish in any way to interfere in or change the assessment made by the NRPB of the lives lost as a result of the accident?

Mr. Gummer: The Government do not change the recommendations of the NRPB. It is its job to make them. The figures that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is putting together do not connect with each other. The hon. Gentleman must try not to frighten people by making such comments. I shall pursue my argument, and I hope that he will follow it carefully.
One of the problems of discussing this issue is that we must be absolutely straightforward with the public about exactly what happened in all occasions and at all times.
We can only do that if we are absolutely clear that on no occasion must we seek to use the fears of the public for reasons of our own. Those two things must guide us.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I ask the specific question.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a lot to say when he makes his own speech.
I have been closely concerned with this accident since it happened and my right hon. Friend and I have decided to publish the figures month by month so that everyone will know what they are, and that two things will guide us. First, there should be no question of Ministers not knowing every detail. Secondly, every detail should be published for the country.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be able to understand my concern when, this morning, as I was on the radio, I was challenged because a telex had appeared. I was told:
David Clark"—
if I may call him that, as it was in the broadcast—

Shadow Agriculture Spokesman, will today tell the House of Commons that meat contaminated by radiation after Chernobyl did go on sale in Britain, thousands of tonnes of it. He says he can prove it." 
I was very much taken aback, because I did not have the telex in my notes. No one had mentioned that telex, which evidently came from the chief scientist of the radiochemical institute. It warned the Government. Therefore, it was a telex that I ought to have had in my documentation.
So once I got off the radio, having explained clearly to the public how outrageous it was to talk about the telex on the radio without it having been mentioned beforehand, I went back, rang the deputy secretary concerned and asked, "Where is this telex from the chief scientist of the radiochemical institute?" I understand that he immediately got on to other people and asked, "Where is this telex?" By 3 o'clock this afternoon we had not got the telex. So I rang the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and he very kindly said that not only would he let me have the telex—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister is hysterical.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should wait for the hysteria.
The hon. Member for South Shields not only said that I could have the telex but kindly said that he would mention in the debate that I had not got a copy of the telex earlier.
I have a copy of the telex now. It does not come from the chief scientist of the radiochemical institute. It does not come from the Government. It comes from a company called Large and Company. What is Large and Company? It is a consultant company. With whom does it consult? [Interruption.]No, not the Labour party directly. It consults with a number of people but particularly with local authorities opposed to nuclear power.
To whom did the telex go? Not to the Ministry of Agriculture but, as I understand it, to the Department of the Environment. What did it say? Let me tell hon. Members first what it was suggested that it said. It was suggested that it said there were very high becquerel readings which would have meant that something should have been done immediately. The telex does not actually say that. In fact, it is difficult to see what it says. What it appears to say is to repeat what the Government had already stated publicly.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Not all debates in the House are broadcast. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the true statement that he is now giving to the House appears in the later version of the programme to which he has made reference, in which he took part this morning?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will know that it is difficult for me to make sure of that. I am sure the hon. Member for South Shields will want to make the point when he next appears on the "Today" programme.
The telex did not come from whom it was supposed to have come, nor did it go to whom it was said that it went. Nor was the content of it what was implied. It is a telex. That is certainly true. Otherwise none of the statements made is true. It is time that we looked at this carefully. It is said that the Government did some monitoring on 14 May, as if this had suddenly been discovered by the telex, as if the Government had done nothing about it, and as if it was known only now that these things had happened.


I will tell the House how we knew; we knew because the Government published it in a press notice on 13 May. We did the monitoring and we published the information.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea why the Opposition needed to adopt these tactics and why they needed to invent telexes from the Ministry of Agriculture which were not from that Ministry? Can he make a copy of the telex available, because it sounds fascinating? Perhaps he will place a copy in the Library.

Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to place it in the Library. I do not think it is an invented telex. It is certainly a telex. The complaint is that the telex is not what it purported to be.

Dr. David Clark: I will deal with the substantive point in a moment, but in response to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) may I say that the telex has been in the Library of the House since July 1986? The hon. Gentleman could have consulted it if he had taken an interest in it.

Mr. Gummer: I still believe that there is a substantive problem. We are dealing with something which is very frightening. Therefore, we need to deal with it with the greatest respect for truth. If we intend to raise the matter, one of the things we might do is to get in touch beforehand with the person who was supposed to have sent the telex in case we have misunderstood a complex series of notes. The telex is not well written. It is difficult to understand to what it refers. I have asked some very senior scientists to look at it. There are problems as to what the telex meant originally. I would have thought that the hon. Member for South Shields might have felt that this was an occasion to ask the Minister beforehand, out of courtesy, perhaps to explain it, but that did not happen.
The story went on. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government did nothing for seven full weeks after the monitoring. I think it would be interesting for the House to know why we did nothing and exactly what happened. We did not do anything, of course, and we said that we would not do anything. So everybody knew; there was no secret about it. Why did we do nothing? We did nothing because of what we were monitoring. First, we monitored the sheep. These are the sheep that are supposed to have entered the food chain.

Mr. Campbeil-Savours: They did.

Mr. Gummer: What an odd thing it would be if they entered the food chain because these were 10 kg lambs. I do not know how close the hon. Gentleman is to his farming community but 10 kg lambs are rarely found for sale. Lambs usually have to reach about 30 kg, so they have quite a long way to go. The one thing we knew was that these 10 kg lambs were not wandering off the hillside into a market.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Is it possible that these lambs might have gone to Italy because they like smaller lambs there?

Mr. Gummer: They might have gone to Italy except that they would have had to be about 20 kg. Of course, before they go to Italy or anywhere else they come down off the high hills and they are — we used to say fattened but now we say finished—finished a bit lower down. That is what happens to them. So we know, first, that they are not

going to be sold; secondly, they will be brought down to land which is totally non-contaminated or has low contamination; thirdly, they will grow bigger. So the level which is in them becomes a smaller proportion of their total weight. Therefore, if they are above the level originally, when they come to be sold they will be below the level.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Gummer: I want to finish this because it is complicated and I want to get it absolutely right.
So they were above the level but we kept monitoring them carefully. Why? To make sure that when action was necessary we would take it because the 1,000 bq level is not what the hon. Member for South Shields said; it is not a safety level but an action level. It is the level at which it is decided what programme of action will be taken. We took the decision. We said that at the point at which any meat or anything else entered the food chain we would take the action necessary to make sure that nobody was damaged or endangered by it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Gummer: No; I shall be happy to give way later, but I want to get the sequence of events right.
The hon. Member for South Shields said that the lambs were innocently sent to market. Innocently? They were being barmily sent to market. Anyone who sent a 10 kg lamb to market would be a natural. What did the hon. Gentleman say? He said that there were thousands of tonnes of it. I happen to know that the hon. Gentleman went today to discover how many tonnes of lamb went through the markets that he quoted. I have got them here —Carlisle, Kendal, Ulverston and Penrith. Having said that thousands of tonnes of contaminated lamb went into the food chain he went today to find out how much had gone through. It is less than 1,000 tonnes of lamb altogether.
So there could not have been thousands of tonnes of contaminated lamb. Why? Because there was very little lamb going through the market at that time and they were all a darned sight bigger than 10 kg. I do not know how many 10 kg lambs one needs to add up to thousands of tonnes, but there were not 1,000 tonnes. I do not want to overdo it; it would be about 600 tonnes. Indeed, I have overdone it because I have shown that the hon. Gentleman was frightening people for party political purposes. That is a scandal.
This is the beginning of a campaign. I never had so many questions put down as about these things. The hon. Gentleman is obviously determined to try to frighten the public unnecessarily. Sometimes one has to warn the public. Sometimes one has to tell the public that things are dangerous and have to be handled extremely carefully. To frighten people when it is unnecessary is outrageous.
We are then told that the Government did not take the necessary measures. The interviewer was so convinced that this was the suggestion—Mr. Redhead is a man of great discernment—that he said:
You say 7 full weeks—lets go back to when the first warning was issued." 
Then we had the bit about the chief scientist at the radiochemical institute. The letter was not sent from him, nor was it sent to him. He does not exist. There is no such person. We are told that we then ignored the situation. We ignored it so much that we monitored it in great detail and,


on 20 June, several months before the main market period, we introduced tough regulations, irrespective of the damage that they might do to farmers. We made sure that the people of this country were protected.
At that time the Opposition were prepared to support us in this. They said, "It is our duty to make sure that farmers do not suffer from irresponsible stories. We have got to be very tough, but we will not make the farmers lose their markets. We will make sure that the farmers can honestly say that no contaminated meat which may harm people will reach the market." That is what the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, as shadow Minister, said. Is it possible that he was too responsible to continue in his job?

Mr. Martin Redmond: The Minister said earlier that he had all the details at his fingertips. Will he tell us how many sheep have been tested in South Yorkshire? Some of my constituents get their drinking water from wells. Has any testing been done on those wells? The Pennines stood a chance of becoming contaminated and the water coming down into those wells might also have been contaminated.

Mr. Gummer: The number of sheep tested was 2,020 and the number found to be contaminated was two. They were contaminated at 1,200 bq instead of 1,000 bq. The safety figure suggested in Sweden is 6,000 bq.
I want to get the sequence of events right. We then did what we said we would do and protected the public. We were supported in that, and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor complimented the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the way in which it had co-ordinated the action. On the radio this morning, the hon. Gentleman said that there was complete confusion within Government ranks. I hope that he will admit that he has wrongly attacked many honourable and decent civil servants who carried out this remarkable act on which his predecessor complimented them. He then said that thousands of tonnes had entered the food chain when there were none. What did he then go on to say? He said that we have a lower safety level than any other European country. I thought I would have a look.

Mr. Frank Cook: Many.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may take me outside, but I shall tell him what the hon. Member for South Shields said. I checked the typescript of the broadcast. It said:
any of the other European countries." 
Only two other European countries have had problems with meat contamination. Neither of them is in the European Community. One is Norway and the other is Sweden. Both those countries have Socialist Governments. They are both safety conscious. Both of them are extremely careful, not least about the reindeer, which were mainly affected by the problem.
Of course, in Britain we have a level of 1,000 bq. It is not a safety level. It is called an action level in all countries. Sweden's lowest action level was 1,500 bq; Norway's action level was 6,000 bq. Such are the figures. The House may wonder why I have taken such time to cover those details. The reason is all those people out there, listening to the "Today" programme, who have been told that we are not a safe country and that the food that our farmers

produce is not safe to eat. The hon. Member for South Shields has done the industry and the country a grave disservice this morning.
The story does not end there. We are concerned to tell the truth, publicly, about these matters. They are true issues and they are issues that must be put forward properly. For that reason, I shall spend a short time discussing Yorkshire. The order would be concerned with Yorkshire if we had any worry about the safety of land in that region. However, Yorkshire has been mentioned and I shall briefly refer to it.
The hon. Member for South Shields spoke of dangerous things in Yorkshire and said that we had only done something because he had told us to do so. The hon. Gentleman said that we knew nothing about the problem, that we had hardly monitored the area and that it was all extremely dangerous. Let me explain our monitoring system. Before the cloud from Chernobyl reached us we made sure that the Meteorological Office produced the best historical rainfall pattern that was possible to ascertain what areas were most likely to be contaminated.

Mr. Frank Cook: Then they were kept secret.

Mr. Gummer: Then we said, publicly, exactly what areas were most likely to have been affected. We commissioned a public report from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology to look at all the lichen and vegetation to discover again where the contamination had been greatest. That was done on a nationwide basis.
To check the information received we examined foodstuffs of almost every type, in every county, to compare them against each other. As a result of that and our constant monitoring we then monitored particularly closely those places where there had been greater contamination. Nothing of any kind suggested that the part of Yorkshire in question was one that we should monitor particularly carefully.
As it turns out — [HON.MEMBERS: "Ah!"] — we had some evidence that suggested that three things, taken together, were surprising. First, there had been a local rainstorm. Secondly, there had been a patch of land, some 20 acres of moorland, which had been burnt off extremely heavily and the sheep had congregated on that spot. Thirdly, when we came to test those sheep, out of those 2,300 animals, two turned out to have a becquerel level of 1,200. For the rest of this year and the next I could eat animals that had a bequerel level of 1,200. If I ate nothing else but sheepmeat, day in and day out—I would ask the hon. Member for South Shields to do likewise—at the end of that period I would have absorbed as much radioactivity as I would from a routine chest X-ray. No one in this country could possibly eat enough lamb with such a becquerel level to get the equivalent of an average dose resulting from a chest X-ray. However, today the hon. Member for South Shields was frightening people by saying that if they ate lamb from Yorkshire they would become ill. I believe that the farmers have a right to sue him because he has suggested that their products are not fit to eat. Unfortunately, our civil servants cannot sue for the impression given that they have not done their job properly, that they are not protecting the people of this country and that they are not doing what they should do. That is wholly unacceptable and wrong.

Ms. Joan Walley: In view of the assurances that the Minister has given us, can he


suggest why it was that, when local authorities and local councils throughout the country—which were concerned about the high rainfall after Chernobyl — made direct phone calls to the Department of the Environment and everywhere else, they were referred to answering machines and received no advice about how to measure radiation?

Mr. Gummer: There was an incident room and I rang it regularly to ensure that it was answering calls and people were not passed on to an answering machine service. I was extremely interested to learn that the local authorities that complained were overwhelmingly those that had a particular view about nuclear power. If anyone suggested that there was some reason why we should do some special testing we did so in case there was any possible chance that we had overlooked something.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend kindly remind the House that, for at least a part of that dramatic weekend, there was a continual refusal from the Soviet Union to give any information to the world as to what had happened? It was only as a result of the viligance of the Swedish Government that any monitoring was done. The Soviet Union—I well remember, because it was in the midst of my by-election — refused to give any information.

Mr. Gummer: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. If one does not have a free society, the habit of giving information does not come easily.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: rose——

Mr. Frank Cook: rose——

Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and then I must finish my speech.

Mr. Frank Cook: There are two matters that I wish to raise with the Minister and I should be grateful for his response.
First, does he not agree that the Soviet authorities have been quite uncharacteristically open about the Chernobyl incident — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes?"] Hang on a minute. I ask that hon. Members listen to the point before they express any kind of opinion. Is it not true that the Soviet authorities have been uncharacteristically open regarding every specific technical detail about the things that led up to the incident, that happened during the incident and that followed?
Secondly, I am interested in the detailed certainty that the Minister displays when telling us all the steps that were taken and all the security measures that were gathered. If that is the case, why is it that, when other hon. Members and myself were trying to gain information at that time, our parliamentary questions were being chased from one Ministry to another, day after day, week after week, because nobody had the answers and the information that we were seeking?

Mr. Gummer: On the first question, of course it is true that the Soviets were extremely open once they were found out, but until then, they were as closed as they always are and will be. As far as the hon. Gentleman's second question, I know of no question that——

Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman has been found out.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has not been here, but if he

had he would know that the only person who has been found out in this debate is his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields who, for the moment, occupies the Opposition Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North must accept that any questions put to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were properly answered and every detail announced. We did not miss a single opportunity to try to give the facts as they were at the very moment that we had the chance to do so.

Mr. Frank Cook: That is not so.

Mr. Gummer: I believe that the key issue is that we must take all the measures that are necessary, and more, to protect the British people from any fear that their food was contaminated in any way or would be contaminated in any way. The serious matter before the House is that, in an attempt to score party political points, the hon. Gentleman sold the farmers down the river, frightened people in a wholly unacceptable way, and has shown himself entirely unsuitable to pretend that he should sit on the Opposition Bench in his present capacity.

Dr. David Clark: I found the Minister's remarks somewhat hysterical. The way in which he has behaved this evening does his office and his cause considerable harm. I intend, in a calm and calculated manner, to disprove many of the points that he has tried to make. I shall do that coldly and rationally, because that is how to get people to listen, and that is how to achieve results.
I agree with one sentiment that the Minister expressed, which was to the effect that he believed that all necessary steps must be taken to ensure that the British people could feel happy about the public safety and health aspects of the accident. I agree 100 per cent. with that. However, if that is the Minister's belief, and in view of the criticism that has come not only from me, but from many bodies that naturally support him — such as the Country Landowners Association — would it not be better to bring the matter into the open with a full public inquiry which could examine it in detail?
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who had the impertinence to intervene and then disappear, referred to the Soviet Union. The orders that we are discussing, under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985(a),are designed to protect the general public in the event of any future accident like that at Chernobyl. I believe, and I hope to prove this evening, that the Government were found wanting. I am not making a party point; I think that there are lessons to be learnt, which have not been learnt because of the hysterical response that we have just observed.
As the Minister said, this is not an inconsequential order. I rather wish that he had mentioned the order, because it might have been helpful. It is a serious order, revoking eight previous orders relating to this important issue. Now, 17 months after the first of those orders, is an appropriate time to sit back coolly and establish whether there are lessons to be learnt, and whether the position could be improved if—God forbid — there were other emergencies like the one that we faced after Chernobyl.
Let me start from a point of consensus. The Government are, of course, in no way to blame for what


happened at Chernobyl; obviously, that was the responsibility of another Government, and the duty of our Government was to protect their own people. I hope, however, to persuade the House that the present Government must accept the blame for the confusion that has emerged in Britain in the aftermath of the accident. We have heard tonight a defensive, almost reactionary, speech from the Minister, full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Many of the facts were wrong. Let me give one example. When my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked a question about South Yorkshire, the Minister gave the figures for North Yorkshire. I assure the Minister that they are two separate counties.

Mr. Gummer: I clearly said "Yorkshire". That covers the whole of Yorkshire. That is what I said, and Hansardwill show that I said it.

Dr. Clark: The Minister will never get away with that. The question was about South Yorkshire, and his answer related to North Yorkshire. When he checks the figures with his advisers, he will find that I am correct. There are two cases in north Yorkshire. It was in that area that in 1986, the Government monitored 14 out of nearly 2 million sheep.

Mr. Andy Stewart: That is plenty.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman says that that is plenty, but I believe that 14 out of 2 million is a pretty low statistical reference on which to base an entire case.
Perhaps I can remind the House of one or two facts —we have not heard many facts tonight. I do not think that even the Minister would disagree with one of them. I know Cumbria, probably slightly better than the Minister does. I was bred there, I started my working life on the land and I have many friends who farm there, and who tell me of the inconsistency and confusion that they have experienced. They have advised me enormously over the past few months, as I have tried to investigate as fully as possible the way in which the Government have operated the scheme.
My thinking is also influenced by the fact that I was living in Cumbria when the greatest nuclear accident prior to Chernobyl occurred, at Windscale in 1957. I well remember the milk being poured down the drains, and the reassurances of the scientists that it was safe there. We now know that there are doubts—I put it as mildly as that— about that advice.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Under the cloak of secrecy.

Dr. Clark: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) reminds us, the Official Secrets Act imposed a cloak of secrecy.
Let us examine the chronology. It is important to get that right, because it is the substance of my case. The Chernobyl explosion happened early on the morning of 26 April. As we have been reminded by one of the gentlemen of the rent-a-mob gang who have now disappeared, the Swedes were the first to experience the Chernobyl cloud on 28 April. The following day, the cloud was breaking up into various sections, and radioactivity reached western Europe. The Minister did not give the details, but I shall

do so. On 29 April, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food started to monitor fresh milk in southern Britain.
On 2 May — the dates are very important — the radioactive plume reached the south-east of the United Kingdom. The Minister's Department requested regular updates from various public bodies — over a dozen of them—to try to work out where the danger could lie. Sampling was extended from milk to vegetation. On 3 May, the plume passed north and west over the United Kingdom. Heavy rain during the passage of the plume on the night of 2 May and part of the next day resulted in high rainfall in parts of the north-west, north Wales, southern Scotland and, as we now know, parts of Yorkshire.
The Minister has reminded us that, on 4 May, his Department established an operations room. It is interesting that, while the Minister was able to get through, my hon. Friends could not. Nevertheless, that operations room was established, and arrangements were made to try to obtain samples for analysis as quickly as possible. Those arrangements included airlifting.
On 5 May, the National Radiological Protection Board confirmed that published derived emergency reference levels, as the Minister calls them, should be established. I hope that the Minister and I agree on all of that, because it is fact.
We now come to more contentious but equally factual issues, leading up to the original orders that were discussed in the House last year — and which, indeed, are consolidated in SI 1893, which is before us this evening.
Following the arrival of the Chernobyl cloud over the United Kingdom, there was considerable public concern and press comment. Anyone who knew anything about radioactivity knew that, sooner or later, there would be a radioactive fallout throughout Europe to a greater or lesser extent. But few people knew the effect of that fallout.
On 6 May, public concern was such that the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), came to the House and made a statement. Quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman tried to reassure the public. He said:
the effects of the cloud have already been assessed and that none presents a risk to health in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report,6 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 21.]
The general public and the farming community—so well beloved by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and his friends — were, naturally, reassured by that. However, the Minister was perhaps a little too hasty in his words of reassurance. Although the Department of the Environment took that line, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was getting together the statistics and making arrangements to co-ordinate the results.
On 5 May, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology obtained radioactivity readings of caesium on grass of over 26,000 bq/kg in Ennerdale and of over 6,500 bq/kg near Seascale. Both places were later included in the restricted area of Cumbria. The warning bells should have been ringing in the Minister's ears when he saw those figures.
It is also worth making a point about the emergency reference levels to which the Minister referred. The figure of 1,000 bq for radioactive caesium in sheepmeat is internationally accepted. In the past, the Minister has tried to confuse the House by suggesting that 4,000 to 5,000 bq/ kg is the appropriate level. His only source for that is the Article 31 Group of European Community advisers who


are in a very small minority. I remind the Minister, too, that he ought to look at the report that was published last week by the National Radiological Protection Board. It suggests that the safety levels that we have been operating in Great Britain are too low and that we need higher safety standards.
If we want the truth about the emergency reference levels, we should turn again to Hansard.In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accurately and concisely how the levels were arrived at. The hon. Lady said:
Emergency reference levels for sheepmeat in the United Kingdom were agreed by the Government on the advice of the National Radiological Protection Board and were derived from recommendations published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection." — [Official Report,13 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 335.] 
That was a straightforward answer. The Minister should not try to confuse the general public by referring to an outrageously high level — a figure that even his Government were not prepared to support in the Council of Ministers discussions in Brussels earlier this week.

Mr. Gummer: For the most vulnerable group—babies consuming milk that has possibly been contaminated by radiation—the World Health Organisation has referred to a level of 2,000 bq—a figure twice as high as ours. Sweden and Norway have chosen 1,506 bq. Is it not possible that the hon. Gentleman is slightly over-egging the pudding?

Dr. Clark: It does not- become the Minister to belittle his hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary, who answered honestly and openly the questions that were asked. Furthermore, the Minister should not doubt the wisdom of his professional advisers, the National Radiological Protection Board. It ill becomes the Minister to castigate another hon. Member for criticising him when he criticises his own advisers.
On 14 May, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carried out tests in Cumbria, when at least four sheep were found to be above the safety level of 1,000 bq/ kg. One of those sheep had a reading that was in excess of the World Health Organisation figure, to which the Minister has just referred. It had a reading in excess of 2,400 bq/kg. No action had been taken by the Government by 14 May. Even when they were armed with this disturbing evidence, Ministers, amazingly enough, refused to act. We had to wait until 20 June 1986 before the then Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), announced to the House that restrictions on sheep movement were to be imposed in Cumbria.
I emphasised the fact that it took the Government seven weeks to reach a decision. I shall repeat that point, because the Minister obviously does not understand the farming cycle in Cumbria. During those seven weeks a certain amount of sheepmeat, some of which undoubtedly contained high levels of radioactivity, entered the food chain. If he is prepared to listen, I shall explain to the Minister how that happened.
On 20 June, the Minister's restrictions covered most of Cumbria on both the high and low land. His hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is more aware of that fact than most. Many of the lambs that had been born early in the season in the lowland areas were

offered for sale at a local market in that period. I have checked that fact with farmers in Cumbria. They sent early born lambs to market.
I do not make these allegations without having checked the facts. I am not a fool; I realise that the Minister will challenge me if I make general allegations. Therefore, I contacted the Meat and Livestock Commission and took as examples four markets in Cumbria; Carlisle, Kendal, Penrith and Ulverston. Carlisle market takes a number of sheep from Scotland, and I remind the House that parts of Dumfriesshire and Nithsdale are also restricted areas. The Meat and Livestock Commission advised me that at least 24,900 sheep and lambs were offered under the sheep variable premium scheme at those four markets during those seven weeks. They were judged by local farmers to be fat lambs ready for slaughter. Fat lambs were also offered to other local markets.
I have given the figure for those four markets, but I have underestimated the number. There have been other well-documented assertions. The New Scientistclaims that over 40,000 sheep entered the food chain. I stand by the figures that were given to me today by the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman says that thousands of tonnes of contaminated meat went on sale in Britain, but he has been unable to prove that a single tonne of contaminated meat went on sale in Britain. The reason that he has been unable to do so is because it did not go on sale in Britain.

Dr. Clark: The Minister is getting so worked up that he is not listening to the points that are being put to him. I have quoted the figure of 24,000 bq/kg. He told me that the figure is somewhat in excess of 1,000 bq/kg. I have grossly underestimated the position. The other figures— for example, those in the New Scientist—are in excess of my figure. If one adds together those figures, one comes to at least 2,000 tonnes.
Does the Minister believe that the 1,000 farms in Northern Ireland that are now restricted and that were not restricted last year did not have contaminated lambs? Does he believe that the 39 farms in Scotland that are now restricted and that were not restricted last year did not have contaminated lambs? Does he think that those farmers did not send their lambs to market? Of course they did. They are in business to make a profit, and their business is the breeding of lambs.

Mr. Gummer: The farmers did not send those lambs to market, because they were under the size at which they could be sent to market. The hon. Gentleman is taking the contamination levels in one part of the country and applying them to another, thus frightening people by suggesting that they have eaten contaminated lambs. The hon. Gentleman is a disgrace.

Dr. Clark: I apologise if I have upset the Minister, but he does not listen. Those lambs were offered and accepted for sale under the sheep variable premium scheme. They met all the necessary requirements. The Minister keeps on about the size of lambs. His hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border could tell him that we have low land in Cumbria on which sheep can be born early. A number of farmers have told me that they sent lambs from areas that were later restricted. If those areas were restricted on 20 June, is the Minister saying that they were


not contaminated two weeks or two days before? Of course they were likely to be contaminated, and that is the point that I seek to make.

Mr. Gummer: When lambs that have been contaminated on the high land are taken down to the low land, for some time they are still contaminated. Therefore, the restriction order was put on to ensure that those lambs were not taken to market. The take-up of caesium occurs over a period. We know how long that period is. Therefore, we monitored lamb for that period and the moment there was any possibility of contaminated lamb above 1,000 bq/kg either in size or place, we stopped it going to market. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to mislead the House and the public.

Dr. Clark: I do not need a lessen in elementary sheep breeding in Cumbria. I started my working life on the farms of Cumbria and I know more about that than the Minister. He said that lambs born in the high areas are brought down to the low lands for further fattening. He is right, but they are not brought down in May and June. They are brought down at the back end of the year and later in summer. The lambs that were sent to market were lowland lambs, born in early 1986, that ate grass in an area that was restricted.
The Minister is having great difficulty in appreciating logic, so I shall move on to another topic. It appears that there was considerable confusion between the various Government bodies and Departments. It is quite plain that the Department of the Environment was not sure what the Minister of Agriculture was doing. That is serious, because they were dealing with the Chernobyl accident. We are looking at how we reacted to that disaster so that we can learn from it. Is the Minister convinced that the arrangements that have been in place for the past 20 months are adequate? I appreciate that ear-tagging was later undertaken, but could that not have been done earlier? If we have another disaster, I ask that he should consider ear-tagging at an earlier stage. Twenty-five thousand blue-marked sheep in Cumbria were monitored.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Did the blue paint wash off those sheep? The Minister has not mentioned the Cockermouth market. A senior auctioneer in the county told me today that many fat lambs would have gone through that market. Can my hon. Friend elaborate on that?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) not only comes from Cumbria but is a food scientist who worked for many in the food industry. He knows a thing or two about the food industry. If the Minister talked to sheep farmers in Cumbria or the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, I think he would find that that blue paint washed off very quickly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was told of those lamb movements by representatives of the NFU in the county. He was told precisely what I was told when I inquired of farmers what was happening. I raised that in the House and it was pooh-poohed by the Government. That is in Hansard.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington also comes from Cumbria and I think that he

knows more about Cumbria than the Minister. A number of farmers told me that the blue paint washed off. I did not raise this previously because I thought it was unfair, but when the blue paint washed off, that resulted in the secondary sale of sheep and in sheep being mixed up. If the Minister checks, he will find that there was slippage and leakage in the system. I will not be more explicit, as I think that the Minister will accept that.
On the basis of the monitoring of 52,000 sheep, the Minister released for slaughter the remainder of the blue-marked sheep on 27 February. However, thousands of other blue-marked sheep were sold outside the designated area in Cumbria. As the Minister told us in his elementary agriculture lesson, there is a pattern of sheep movement. Hill sheep move down to the lusher pastures in the southern counties. Many blue-marked sheep went downstream, so to speak, for fattening.
In southern Cumbria one of the traditional destinations is Staffordshire. Those sheep, after fattening, went to slaughter in 1987. Yet, in a parliamentary answer on 24 November, the Parliamentary Secretary advised that no monitoring of any sheep was undertaken in Staffordshire. As the sheep had come from an area of known risk, would it not have been sensible to have done at least some sample monitoring prior to the slaughtering? I suggest that that is another point that the Minister might like to note as worthy of consideration.
Some of the Cumbrian sheep went to parts of north Yorkshire for fattening, at which time it was thought that the area was free from contamination. Yet we now know that parts of north Yorkshire were affected perhaps as badly as parts of Cumbria. Why was there so little liaison between his Ministry and the Meteorological Office before the Yorkshire Postand I drew the report to the Minister's attention?
I hope that the Minister was joking earlier. Is he satisfied that only 14 sheep out of almost 2 million in North Yorkshire is a satisfactory sample to monitor? That is very serious. Is he satisfied that no sheep out of almost 100,000 in south Yorkshire were monitored? Those were high upland areas. The areas in south Yorkshire were peatland and areas of high rainfall where monitoring should have been done 20 months ago. The Minister made the point, rather jokingly, that in Yorkshire a couple of weeks ago only two lambs were found to be over the 1,000 bq/kg limit. If there were only two in November 1987— it was a small sample—I wonder how many we would have found if we had done detailed monitoring at the time of the rain cloud in May 1986. That is the sort of question that has to be answered.
I have a question on the Order Paper asking whether the Minister will undertake spot checks for radioactivity on sheep flocks in the five northern counties of England. By a strange coincidence, the head of branch C of the Ministry's northern regional office in Leeds, which is responsible for civil emergencies, is quoted as saying that a scheme is under way to make random checks,
and the testing itself began last week.
I understand that press inquiries at the Minister's office evoke only denials of such spot checks taking place.
That is what I mean by confusion between and within Government Departments. Quite simply, the left hand of the Government was and is clearly still unaware of what the right hand is doing. There appears to have been a complete lack of co-ordination. Today the Minister was unaware of the facts that I and my hon. Friend the


Member for Carlisle put to him about the blue-painted sheep in Cumbria. I did not raise that point, for obvious reasons, but the Minister did not know, and I find that incredible.
The key point to emerge from the order and perhaps the cardinal point that came out of the Minister's speech was that we have not learnt the lesson of the events following 26 April 1986. It is essential that if ever there were to be another nuclear accident we should not repeat the mistakes we have made in dealing with the emergency after Chernobyl. That is not only my opinion. Other Government bodies recognise that the operation was far from satisfactory. Dr. Smith of the Meteorological Office, in his famous report, said:
To some extent Government and the nuclear industry at large within the United Kingdom found themselves somewhat disorganised by the sheer scale of the Chernobyl incident as it affected the United Kingdom.
That is the point that we are trying to make.
I end where I began, by saying that the Minister does himself no good at all with his hysterical outbursts, by his failure to address his mind to the order before us and by the sheer crass ignorance that he shows about sheep farming in Cumbria.

Mr. David Curry: I would like to address my remarks to the position in my constituency. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the most recent stories have concerned my constituency.
I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his assurance to my constituents that there never was a danger, there is no danger now and that there will not be a danger in the future. Those who have whipped up the crisis should now tell my constituents that—…

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the narrow terms in which the debate is taking place? Am I not correct in saying that it relates to the county of Cumbria?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has only just started his speech. I have not heard anything out of order yet.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke about sheep moving to North Yorkshire. Therefore, as the hon. Member representing the constituency of Skipton and Ripon, I am taking my cue from him and referring to the matters affecting my constituents.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm in his reply that there never has been a crisis, that there will not be a crisis and that those who have lived off the so-called crisis for the past couple of weeks now have to lay it to rest? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the tests undertaken with great speed by the Ministry after this story appeared in the Yorkshire Post—a story to which the hon. Member for South Shields attached himself with great alacrity — showed that only two ewes out of more than 2,000 were found to be above the 1,000 bq/kg level, which is 0–001 per cent? Those two ewes were in a flock of 70. They were all shearlings concentrated on a small patch of moorland in one part of my constituency.
The only even relatively high count found on the grass, heather, lichen, or bilberry that was tested was on heather that came from precisely the same part of the moor. With most sheep now coming off the high ground and beginning

to eat feed, it is clear that even those low counts will reduce. I must seriously question whether it is worth continuing with the tests at the same intensive level.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend help Opposition Members who said that even one ewe is enough by explaining that no ewes would be sold into the food chain until they had reached the end of their reproductive years and that the two ewes involved were breeding ewes?

Mr. Curry: The entire herd consisted of breeding ewes, and they will continue to be used for breeding. The two ewes found to be over the 1,000 bq/kg level have been slaughtered, so they are not in a position to do any more harm.
There are one or two suggestions that could usefully be retained in case we ever face the same sort of problem again.
Clearly the problem in my constituency arose because of a very localised storm. The Meteorological Office draws up its data from local detail and depends sometimes on amateur observations using rain gauges. I understand from my researches that it takes about seven months to compile local weather data based on this local input and information. The significance of that local storm was not noticed until about February, about nine months after Chernobyl.
The Ministry got the big areas—Scotland, Cumbria and Wales — right, but clearly it would be helpful if some means could be found to lessen the time for the compilation of data of what is necessarily a scattered series of observations.
It would be helpful if we could be certain that the bodies doing the monitoring were reporting to one central point, so that all of the observations are sent to their intended destination. Those are two small management points, but nonetheless they are valid, given the circumstances that prevailed in my constituency.
It was right of the press to bring this matter to our attention. Having done so, and it having been clearly demonstrated that there is no crisis, it is the duty of the press to inform my constituents and their readers that the affair is closed and that there is no reason for concern. When I read the press reports, I went to my constituency. I expected to drive up the Al and see the southbound carriageway blocked by my constituents, their furniture on roof racks, fleeing the area. However, I found to my great satisfaction that their good sense had prevailed and that farmers were still more concerned about the variable premium than Chernobyl fallout. That is a tribute to the good sense that they and the rest of my constituents showed.

9 pm

Mr. Eric Martlew: I did not hear the radio broadcast, so I am a little surprised by the heat that has been generated. I speak as a Cumbrian Member who has sheep in his constituency, and it may surprise Cumbrian Members that they are grazing on Rickerby Park.
Those sheep are not affected by the order, but many people in Cumbria are concerned at the way that the Government have tackled the monitoring and control of sheep since the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine on 26 April 1986. At that time, I was employed as a manager in a large milk factory just outside of my constituency. I was relieved, as were many other people in food industries,


when in May the Secretary of State for the Environment said that radiation levels were nowhere near the levels at which there was a hazard to health. That was reassuring, but it turned out to be the first of many misguided statements that were given by Ministers. At best it was a wrong guess; at worst it was a deliberate misstatement to lull people into a false sense of security. It is a sad state of affairs that if, 18 months later, there were a similar accident, the Government would be no better prepared than they were in April 1986.
I shall recap briefly the events after the accident on 26 April. On 2 and 3 May we had severe downpours in parts of northern England, especially the Cumbrian fells and parts of Yorkshire. That rain contained high levels of radiation, especially of caesium, which is a substance that everybody admits has a half-life of 30 years. It was not until 20 June that any sort of order was made stopping sales of sheep. As if that were not bad enough, it was not until 24 June that that order was put into effect in Scotland. I am sure that the Chernobyl fallout did not recognise Hadrian's wall and that some sheep went to market in Scotland after the ban had been imposed in Cumbria, which demonstrates the inconsistency of the Government.
On 20 June, a statement was made by the right hon. Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who was then the Minister of Agriculture, and a Cumbrian Member. It says:
These present a satisfactory picture overall and there is no reason for anyone to be concerned about the safety of food in the shops."—[Official Report,20 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1333.]
The implication of the press statement was that this was a short-term problem that would go away; that although radio-caesium had a half-life of 30 years in adult animals, half-life is estimated at between 30 and 100 days, but that in lamb it would be shorter—between 25 and 50 days.
People reading that would be happy to assume that this was a small problem that would go away. It reminds me of the statements that were made by politicians and generals at the outbreak of the first world war—"It will all be over by Christmas." We all know that the first world war went on until 1918. Some 18 months later, I bet that no Minister is prepared to tell us when the ban will be lifted from Cumbria. I hope that the Minister of State mentions this point.
Today, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether is was likely that the ban would be lifted within the next 12 months. He said no. It appears that the problems resulting from Chernobyl could last longer than those resulting from the first world war. There are still 75,000 sheep in Cumbria affected by the order. One might have thought that the number would decrease, but it will increase to 150,000 sheep on 150 farms next spring after the lambing season.
Becquerel levels in the county are still high. As late as last July, 4,000 bq/kg were found in a sample. I understand that the failure rate on the affected earth is still 5 per cent. and that often the sheep that fail have 2,000 or 3,000 bq/ kg. If the statements about the time scale of the problem were wrong, one could easily believe that the statements about the safety of the food in shops were wrong. If the

Government can be wrong on one, I am sure that they can be wrong on another. Can we really believe that no affected animals were put on the market?
If the Minister is so sure, why has he not been able to produce the figures? Why can he not say that the authorities tested the sheep that went through the Carlisle market and found them below the stated level? The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that, because the authorities failed in their duty to test those sheep. If that obvious step had been taken, we would not have had to have this debate. We would have known for certain that the authorities failed to protect the public. I believe that some of the lambs that passed through the market should not have done so. The delay between early May and 20 June was a disastrous decision, taken by an unprepared Government.
I have come to the Chamber not to destroy the confidence of the people of Cumbria but to restore it. If confidence is not restored, the county will suffer. Our farmers must be well compensated for the loss not only of lambs but of land values. We must ensure that the restrictions are severe and that anyone who breaks the rules is caught. I am not sure whether there are people in place who can find out whether the rules are broken. I am not sure whether there have been any prosecutions, but I do not want to go into that. We must restore confidence at the international level.
The effect on milk has been mentioned, I think twice. The position in Cumbria following the Chernobyl incident was difficult. Many organisations that exported goods lost major orders in the traditional markets of Asia, Africa and South America. The becquerel levels imposed by those countries were much lower than those imposed by Britain and the position was not helped by our friends in Australia and New Zealand who went around saying, "You do not want to buy any milk from northern Europe because it is full of radiation."
Milk with high becquerel levels, although below the legal minimum, was transported from exporting factories to the home trade, to the doorstep, to ensure that milk with low becquerel levels went to the export market. That is not something that we should be pleased about, and we must be ready for that——

Mr. Gummer: Is the hon. Gentleman alleging that milk with dangerous becquerel levels was sold on the British market?

Mr. Martlew: The Minister was obviously not listening. I said that the milk fell within the legal limits; I am sure that when the Minister reads Hansardhe will see that.

Mr. Gummer: I am not trying to catch the hon. Gentleman out, but he must remember that everything that he says is listened to outside. I want him to confirm that no milk was sold in this country that would be dangerous to someone who drank it.

Mr. Martlew: I was saying that milk containing safe becquerel levels — but which would not be accepted abroad because safety standards are different — was transferred from factories here and sent into the home trade, while milk with low becquerel levels was brought into the exporting factories to go abroad. I am not saying that at any time we sold milk containing becquerel levels above those laid down by the Government.
My next point goes beyond this debate. We must restore people's confidence in the safety of our nuclear


industry. We have a nuclear industry and we must ensure that next time there is an accident it does not involve a British reactor. Confidence has been so badly dented by the Government's handling of the aftermath of Chernobyl —no one suggests that the Government are to blame for the accident—that the only way to restore confidence is by setting up a public inquiry. It would be simple for the Minister to say, "We should have a public inquiry to sort out what is true and what is rumour." That inquiry should not only examine the actions of agencies, Government Departments and environmental groups; it should provide a code of conduct setting out exactly what needs to be done if such an accident happens again. We need a plan for the future. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) implied that there were lessons to be learned, and I am not sure that the Minister has learnt those lessons.
There are very few sheep in my constituency. However, like many other hon. Members, I represent many people who make their living out of producing food products. We must ensure that the general public are confident that the food produced in our factories is safe to eat. That is why I again ask the Minister to set up a public inquiry.

Mr. Gary Waller: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), with whose remarks I should like to associate myself, I wish to refer to Yorkshire. I do so in the full confidence that the order refers to restrictions throughout the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) called for a public inquiry. The difficulty with any kind of inquiry is that it would reflect what has happened during the past week since the story appeared that, unbeknown to everyone, levels of caesium that could conceivably have been dangerous to human health had been discovered in Yorkshire. We are faced with a dilemma, because the more the Government and other agencies attempt to reassure people by providing information and carrying out inquiries and tests, the more people inevitably feel that there is a problem.
The test levels in this country are very conservative. It has been said that, if someone ate sheepmeat containing the levels of caesium to be found in Cumbria—I agree that we should certainly take precautions and monitor the movements of those sheep — the level of radioactivity that he would ingest would be similar to what he would experience if he went for a chest X-ray. It is right that, when such tests are carried out, there should be trigger levels which show when a level is above normal. However, it does not automatically mean that, because there is an abnormal level of radiation, there is a real danger to health.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure both the House and those outside that the levels in Cumbria are considerably higher than those in other parts of the country, such as West and North Yorkshire.
Because the information is inevitably technical, there is a great deal of scope for misunderstanding. Indeed, constituents have sent me, through the post, potatoes and carrots that they have dug from their gardens which they think might be contaminated. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend reassured everyone by confirming that no restrictions have been put upon vegetables in Cumbria, and that such restrictions have never been necessary.

Indeed, the arguments for restrictions anywhere else in the country, including my constituency, are even less potent. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend nodding.
It is clear that panic stories will always be more newsworthy than stories that might offer reassurance. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, have been level-headed about the whole affair. There are lessons to be learned, and I hope that we will learn them. There is no doubt that the Meteorological Office did not pick up the heavy rainfall in parts of Yorkshire. However, it should not be assumed that, therefore, there are dangers to health.
I hope that this debate will show people that they do not need to worry, that the level-headed attitude of my constituents is justified, and that indeed, it would have been wrong for restrictions to be imposed in other parts of the country in the way that they have been imposed in Cumbria.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Last week we were privileged to debate the Scottish and Welsh orders. I was not surprised when hon. Members on both sides of the House united to support the Government and the orders. We are duty bound tonight —with respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—to support the Government. It is a very serious problem.
I am a small hill farmer and have lived in Wales all my life. I understand the problems that have faced Welsh farmers. There are similar problems in the north of England and in Scotland. We owe a great deal to the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the scientists who were involved last year. We must realise that the problem — something that we had never previously experienced—came very suddenly. Everyone involved at the time did their very best.
I am aware that a few mistakes were made, understandably, on both sides. Of course, we could be critical of everyone involved, but I believe that, these few months later, we should in fact be paying tribute to the many people involved after the Chernobyl disaster.
I do not agree with what the hon. Member for South Shields said tonight. I am not interested in the telex or in what happened between the Minister and the hon. Gentleman. We have a serious problem on our hands. I have been asked many times by my constituents and others how long the restrictions will remain in force. Will it be 12 months, three years or five years? Some have suggested that it could be 100 years before the restrictions are lifted. Those are the questions in which the public are interested.
We are also interested in compensation. The majority of farmers have accepted the compensation that was paid to them, but it is more than likely that, for the first few months after the disaster, farmers who suffered were not adequately compensated. I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the Minister will assure the House that he will consider giving them better compensation.
Today and last week, I have listened to hon. Members talking about the lamb trade. I have been selling a few lambs lately, and this year the lamb trade is more buoyant than ever. It is improving every week. I have evidence of that from selling my own lambs.
Now and again, many of us who wear political hats of different shades say things that upset that trade. All of us who have said things that we should not have said about


the Chernobyl disaster should think twice. The hon. Member for South Shields and other Labour Members may disagree with the Minister about trivial matters, but they should remember that there are more important things in life. We are duty bound to look after the sheep industry and the consumers. I beg Labour Members to reconsider what they plan to do later this evening. Let us support the Government on this occasion and ensure that the orders are carried through, to the benefit of everyone involved.

Mr. Tim Boswell: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) spoke with great generosity. I am grateful to him, because at the time of the Chernobyl incident I was serving in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as the special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The attack that has been launched by the Opposition is an attack on the competence or diligence of the scientists and officials who serve the Ministry, and I regret it. It is misconceived, and I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice to resisting it.
I was interested in the figures given by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). It is always difficult to appraise figures given during a debate, but the 24,000 lambs that he mentioned could not have represented more than a small fraction of 1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom throughput of lamb. Indeed, it would be highly implausible if they did. To put it more vividly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about thousands of tonnes of lamb being contaminated. Even if we took the charitable interpretation—that only 1,000 tonnes of lamb had been contaminated — spread over 24,000 lambs, it would mean an average carcase weight of 40 kg per lamb. Of course, if it was more than 10,000 tonnes, there would be an average carcase weight of 400 kg per lamb. In neither case could the lambs have qualified for certification under the sheep variable premium.
The Opposition are engaged — we have seen earlier signs of it, but it has now come to a head—in pursuit of what I call a pastoral fantasy, or Marie Antoinette politics, in which there should be one dosimeter to every sheep in the country and one radiac meter stationed in every field, no living thing can have a single becquerel in it, and there must be a public inquiry every month. If Opposition Members found themselves in the Garden of Eden, they would immediately demand a recount. However, these are serious matters and I want briefly to leave some thoughts with my right hon. Friend for him to answer tonight or later.
My first point concerns the ingestion of foliage by sheep and the eating of those sheep by humans at the end of the food chain, which means that radioactive material goes into the body and forms part of the digestive tract. That is different from an application of radiation from an external source such as an X-ray. I am satisfied that the effect is slight, but I want the Ministeris reassurance, as there have been recent recommendations of a reduction in exposure to radiation in general.
Secondly, I want the Minister to say something about the current research into the expansion of the nationwide coverage of radiation monitoring by local district

authorities. What steps can be taken, and how far has knowledge been expanded on the issue, to eliminate caesium in the peat and foliage that is eaten by hill sheep, so that their exposure can be reduced?
Will my right hon. Friend say something about the European situation? I well remember playing a part in the European draft orders, and I want to know that the Minister is still maintaining the British position on the basis of scientific and objective evidence rather than some politically driven alternative.
Farmers have not featured much in the debate, but will my right hon. Friend say something about farmers who are still in this position? Although not from the same part of the country, I am a farmer and I can well imagine the distress and inconvenience that they have felt, which is not helped by the promulgation of scare stories. I want an assurance that there will be continuing support for farmers for as long as it takes to work out the problem.
Any Government faced with an unprecedented problem such as this have two duties: to be vigilant, and not to be alarmist. The Government have discharged those reasonably. No country was better prepared to handle the problem, and no country in Europe handled it better.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) set out to justify advice that he gave Ministers a year and a half ago. Our view is that the advice that he gave them at that time was wrong.

Mr. Boswell: On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman knows that I am not a scientist and I certainly would not have presumed to give technical advice to Ministers; nor would it have been proper for me to refer in the Chamber to advice that I might have given Ministers on that or any other occasion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman referred to himself as a special adviser to Ministers, from which I perhaps drew the wrong conclusions.
I want to draw attention to two areas in which the Government have been negligent. The first arises from the time that elapsed following the incident that took place at 1.24 am on Saturday 26 April 1986, when the explosion took place at Chernobyl. On 28 April, the Swedes were carrying out routine environmental monitoring following the triggering of high levels of radiation. They at once advised many of their farmers to take immediate action. The information held by the Swedes was communicated to most of western Europe. There are Ministers on the Front Bench who know that that information was made available to the British Government that weekend.
No farmer in Cumbria in the areas that were subsequently to be restricted was ever advised about action to remove his lambs from the fells. No action was taken in the United Kingdom on Monday or on Tuesday, although by that time the radioactive plume was being carried across Europe. I understand that on Tuesday evening the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food started the sampling of fresh milk in the southern counties of Britain. Farmers in Cumbria were still not being told to remove their lambs from the fells or not to take them to market.
On Wednesday and Thursday there was still no advice to farmers in Cumbria. By Friday the radioactive plume


had reached the south-east of England and the Ministry requested regular updates from the Meteorological Office on the plume's trajectory and on rainfall data. By that time sampling had been extended to cover vegetation, but still no action was taken relative to sheep farmers in Cumbria. I presume that by that time experts would have known that there would be damage to the fells, to the higher parts of Wales, to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and to parts of England—certainly to the Lake District.
On the Saturday afternoon I was in my garden. In effect it is on the side of a fell, because I live at the bottom of Laterigg in the Lake District. It was a warm day with fairly heavy rainfall. That can be checked. That was Chernobyl rain that was falling, but no one had been alerted and there were no warnings. That was a week after the Chernobyl disaster but farmers in the county had still not been warned, and it was only on the following day that it was suggested that there might well have been some rainfall in the county that had implications for farming on the fells. There was no action for a further month.
Questions were asked in Parliament, and that brings me to the second point of negligence that I lay at the Government's door. Farmers became worried about whether they would be compensated. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is a farmer. Does he remember farmers asking him at that time whether they would ever be compensated? Sheep farmers are the lowest paid farmers in the United Kingdom. Hill farmers in the Lake District are certainly badly paid.
During that time, lamb was finding its way to the market. Nearly seven weeks later, on 20 June, a Minister announced to the Commons that the Government would be prepared to consider compensation. He did not say that the Government would pay compensation, but that they would consider it. That further aggravated the insecurity in farming communities, certainly in the county of Cumbria, about whether any compensation would be paid. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) shakes his head. Does he deny that during that month he was called to a meeting and asked about the principle of compensation? Does he deny that worries over compensation by farmers in my constituency were expressed to him? He could nod to the Minister and the Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and deny it for him.
In the second half of July, I was asked to come to a meeting of fell farmers in my constituency. I think it was in a farm house in the Newlands valley in the fells. A number of fell farmers turned up, and the conversation that went on for about one and a half hours was only about whether they would be compensated and the form that that compensation might take. Indeed, the farmers repeatedly referred to bankruptcy and what would happen to their livelihoods. People at the meeting spoke about giving up farming because they had not received assurances that they would be compensated.
I was given a document at that meeting and a week later had an appointment with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his Whitehall office. I made representations about the case put to me during that meeting with the farmers. It was not until a few days later that a further statement was made which, to some extent, gave the farmers some satisfaction. Even so, the farmers expressed their concern throughout August.
I believe that in the first week after the Chernobyl incident, Cumbrian farmers should have been alerted and they should have been advised to remove their stock from the fells which were to become contaminated because other farmers were advised to take such action in other parts of western Europe. I also believe that the principle of compensation should have been established from day one.
On 19 March I asked:
Will the Minister give an undertaking that no hill farm producer of lamb whose farm has been subject to contamination as a result of the Chernobyl incident will lose money?" — [Official Report, 19 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 1025.]
The Minister should not have equivocated and turned his reply into one of his cynical little jokes or a hysterical speech about the need for me to admit that farmers were getting a better deal in the United Kingdom. He should have given me an undertaking that farmers would be fully compensated for every loss, so that farmers' minds could have been put at ease.
I raised those questions a week and a half after the incident took place. I have been asking those questions for a long time and that is why farmers are concerned in Cumbria and why, at the end of the day, lamb leaked on to the market in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).

Mr. Ron Davies: This is the third debate that we have had in as many weeks dealing with the consequences of Chernobyl. I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his glowing testimony. It warmed the cockles of my heart. He described his reminiscences of the exact sequence of events.
It is important for hon. Members to realise that we all bring individual points of view to bear on this subject. In many ways the debate has been overshadowed by a remarkable contribution from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who opened the debate and who will reply. His contribution was remarkable and I hope that in retrospect he will appreciate that it was not a fitting contribution. He dwelt at great length, and with unusually colourful language, even for him, on details about the radio interview that he had this morning with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He also referred to a telex, the parentage of which I gather he disputes. More of the radio interview and the telex later; I want to make one or two points first.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), as I understand it, said that he had been a special adviser to the Minister in his previous incarnation. He subsequently denied that when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington.

Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the normal understanding of the role of a special adviser, and the position that I filled, is one who advises on political, not scientific, matters? The substance of this was essentially a scientific judgment.

Mr. Frank Cook: What does that mean?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) wants to know what that means, and so do I. "The Times Guide to the House of Commons"


account, which is no doubt based on information provided by the hon. Gentleman, refers to him as a farmer and a special adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food between 1984 and 1986.I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge the accuracy of that, he should take it up with the editors of that book. He acknowledges that he was a special adviser. I respectfully suggest that he should now recognise that he is no longer a special adviser; he is merely a politician like the rest of us, and, as a politician, he has to make political judgments. It does no good for him to leap to the defence of his erstwhile colleagues by saying that we are being unkind to civil servants. We are not being unkind to civil servants; we are exercising a political choice and engaging in a political debate with the Minister of State because there are points of substance on which we differ.
At the heart of our case lies the question of the competence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food particularly the relationship which exists between that Ministry and other Government Departments. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), because my hon. Friends and I do not want to do anything to destroy the confidence of consumers or producers. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have been careful about the language that we have used in this debate and in previous debates as we do not wish to upset that confidence.
The essence of the Minister's contribution was that he made assertions. He said on three occasions that there were no contaminated lambs offered to market. That statement was an assertion and was the basis of the Minister's case. How on earth can the Minister possibly make that assertion? How can he say that there were no contaminated lambs offered to market? If he can come to the Dispatch Box and say that he and his Department monitored every lamb that went to market, and every lamb was below the action levels, we would accept that his assertion was based on some evidence. However, it has no justification, and the Minister is merely making a bold assertion.
I remind the Minister and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North that the scheme is a voluntary one. It is not compulsory. The success of the scheme depends on the willingness of sheep producers to ring the Ministry and ask it to conduct examinations and monitor the lambs which they propose to sell. If I were to say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North that that offers the opportunity for abuse, he will know what I mean.

Mr. Geraint Howells: No.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman reflects and has some discussion with his colleagues further north in the Principality, he will realise what I mean.

Mr. Howells: No.

Mr. Davies: The Minister will know from contact with his advisers that, to say the least, he was ill-advised in saying that no contaminated lambs have gone to market.
We should acknowledge the central role that MAFF has played in the events of the past 18 months. The Minister would have us believe that it was of no

consequence because the number of lambs involved was so small and the action level of radioactivity was so slight that it did not really matter so long as one did not eat lamb every day for a year. He was so satisfied with the safeguards that he was encouraging his pregnant wife to eat lamb. That was unwise of the Minister, because the order sets out penalties for those who breach the regulations. I think that the Minister will be well advised to respond to some particular questions. If he wishes to engage in frolics with his hon. Friend, I suggest he does it at a later stage.
The order that we are debating — against which Opposition Members will vote this evening—lays down the penalties — an unlimited fine or up to two years' imprisonment—for anyone who does not comply with the regulations. In the light of that, the Minister would be well advised to recognise the importance of the issue. I wish to put three points to him. The first I will refer to as the Yorkshire case. The essence of the Governments response to the recent discovery of a hot spot in Yorkshire was that they dismissed it as a matter of no consequence because they had it all under control anyway. Apparently a small patch of heather moorland had been burnt and therefore had more than usually acidic soils which released the radio-caesium into the cycle.
The Minister must tell the House why it was that not until subsequent questioning of the Meteorological Office gave an indication of the exceptionally heavy rainfall that his Department took an interest in the events in Yorkshire and in the discovery of the hot spot. It is fair to ask the Minister what discussions he had with the Meteorological Office during the period of heavy rain following Chernobyl which brought the radioactive cloud to Britain and washed it down into the earth. I think that we are entitled to know the relationship between MAFF and the Meteorological Office or, more properly, its sponsoring Department, the Ministry of Defence.
I have mentioned the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister tell the House the role played by other Government Departments? As I understand it, the Department of the Environment has a responsibility. Certainly the Department of Trade and Industry has a responsibility. Certainly the Department of Health and Social Security has an involvement. So, too, does the Department of Energy. The Home Office has an involvement. In the case of Scotland and Wales, their Home Departments have a responsibility.
Yet the Minister would have us believe that, despite all the resources, all the scientific advice and all the staff that these Departments of State had, it required my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, in an interview with the Yorkshire Post, to bring it to his attention. That is the worst example of reactive government—waiting until a problem is drawn to their attention. Then the Minister gave us an overreaction.
As to the telex, I had a brief discussion with the Minister behind your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has now acknowledged the existence of the radiochemical inspectorate. I understand that he denied its existence in an earlier exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.
Mention has been made of the telex, and I think it is worth commenting on it. The telex is addressed to the chief scientist of the radio-chemical inspectorate. That inspectorate, established by legislation in 1960, is required


to table annual reports to Parliament. The chief scientist of the radio-chemical inspectorate received the telex on 5 May. It says:
We have reliable information indicating the following as of 5 May 1986.
The telex refers to alpha emitters having been detected at not insignificant levels.
So we note that as early as 5 May 1986 the Government were aware of that. That is being charitable to the Minister and assumes that all the other Departments of State, with all their resources, had not identified the problem. But we know that the Department of the Environment was informed on 5 May because concern was being expressed to the Government's chief scientist in the radio-chemical inspectorate. Yet seven weeks elapsed before the Government took action.
There may be a dispute between the Minister and my hon. Friend about the size of lambs which went to market. There is no doubt that on the figures produced and submitted to the House by the Meat and Livestock Commission, about 25,000 fat lambs were taken to market for slaughter and were introduced into the food chain during that seven-week period, yet the public were denied the protection that they should have been given by the Minister.
Whatever else the Minister does or does not answer, I hope that he will acknowledge the existence of the radio-chemical inspectorate and that he will refer to the fact that it is the responsibility of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Therein lies the heart of the Minister's problem. He has to have discussions with other Departments of State. The attitude of the Department of the Environment was summed up earlier this year, and in 1986, in statements by two of his hon. Friends following the Chernobyl incident. The first was on 9 May, when the Minister of State said:
The problems from radiation would diminish almost completely over the next few days.
He asserted 18 months ago, that the problem would diminish in a few days.
Four days later, the Secretary of State for the Environment went one better. On 13 May, he said:
As long as there are no further discharges from Chernobyl, the incident may be regarded as over for this country by the end of the week".—[Official Report, 13 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 569.]
Eighteen months ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment gave an assurance to the House that the matter would be over in a few weeks, in full knowledge of the fact that contaminated meat was getting into the food chain.
The substance of the Minister's argument this evening has been that the 1,000 bq/kg level is an action level. He said that he would take action as soon as any food was contaminated above that level. That comes a bit odd from a Minister whose colleague, three weeks ago, was trying to persuade us that the 1,000 bq/kg level was much too low. He tried to persuade the House that we should have a 5,000 bq/kg level. We are entitled to some consistency from the Minister of State.

Mr. Gummer: Come on.

Mr. Davies: I understand the Minister's concern, but he took an extraordinary length of time to develop his argument. Let me draw his attention to an article which appeared in The Guardian on 19 November. It said:

Workers exposed to radiation have been warned that new evidence shows that they are twice or three times as likely to develop fatal cancers than was previously thought.
That warning came from the National Radiological Protection Board.
Given the wealth of evidence about the increasing understanding of the problems of radioactivity and the increasing concern about the problems of contamination, I hope that the Minister will realise that the level of communication between his officials and other Government Departments is inadequate. He is asking the House to support the order. To get that support, the Minister has to prove his case. He has not done so, and we shall vote against the order.

Mr. Gummer: With the leave of the House, I should like to try to reply to the debate. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has made the serious allegation that fat lambs which were seriously contaminated got into the food chain without the protection that the Government claimed to provide. In that sense, he is warning people that they may have been endangered by what happened. They were not endangered. Under this measure, the Government will continue to ensure that they are never endangered.
At the beginning of the debate, I challenged the hon. Member for South Shields to deny that this morning he had clearly misled the nation by saying:
Certainly I think the general population was probably basically all right, but for the 'at risk' group it's very worrying —pregnant people, young children etc.
He suggested on the radio that young people and pregnant women who ate lamb should be worried. That is wholly untrue and he knows it. It is an outrageous slur and the fact that he could not reply to it shows both his own bankruptcy and the outrageous way in which he behaved his morning.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister made some serious allegations, but there is one simple way to prove or disprove the matter. As the Minister and the House know, every person who is in possession of a sheep has to keep a sheep movement book. Why does the Minister not call in every sheep movement book in existence? Conservative Members may frown, but it is on this basis that we get our subsidies. I challenge the Minister to investigate every sheep movement book and then we can look at them publicly and see exactly where all the sheep movements in Cumbria were. As has been said, that would prove it once and for all.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for South Shields said that thousands of tonnes of contaminated sheepmeat got into the food chain. He knows that that is untrue. He cannot prove it and he is now flapping about trying to find some answer for the — I use the words advisedly — disgraceful behaviour of his hon. Friends and himself in the House and this morning on radio.
The hon. Member for South Shields is trying to make so much fuss because he knows he has let the farmers down, he has let his party down and he has denied what his predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), said the whole time. It is within the House's memory that the hon. Member for Pontypridd was most careful to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells).
We all agreed that we would tell the truth directly and give the figures as quickly as we could, but on no occasion


would we seek to use the natural fears of the people for party political purposes. The hon. Member for Pontypridd held loyally and decently to that. The hon. Member for South Shields has let himself down on this occasion. The House knows it, and no amount of baa-ing from the Opposition Benches will cover up that fact.
The hon. Member for South Shields said that he had a telex in his hand that came from the chief scientist of the radiochemical institute. It turned out that that telex was sent to the chief scientist of the radiochemical inspectorate. That is what happened. The hon. Gentleman said the opposite—I have the transcript before me—and the hon. Gentleman was wrong. That telex came from an organisation that advises those local authorities that are opposed to nuclear power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]
The hon. Member for South Shields said that we have the highest action level in Europe. However, he failed to mention that the only two other countries in Europe that have problems with meat are Sweden, which has an action level of 1,500 bq/kg—500 bq/kg higher than ours—and Norway, which has an action level of 6,000 bq/kg.
The hon. Member for South Shields has sought to use false facts and a serious misstatement about the telex to try to lead people astray and to frighten them. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made that clear and he was right to do so.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr.Waller) that his constituents are quite right not to be worried about any radiation that occurred in that area from the Chernobyl disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is correct to say that it is the duty of the press to report all that has been said
in this debate——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Get the books in.

Mr. Gummer: The scare stories that have been spread by Opposition Members are totally false.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I have only two minutes to go.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) cast a considerable slur on my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). At no time was he told by his farmers that they were trying to avoid the system. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman for Workington must accept that that is also a terrible slur on British farmers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let the record show that I never said what the Minister has attributed to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Workington——

Mr. Frank Cook: rose——

Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way, as I only have a minute to go. The hon. Member for Workington showed the close attention that he pays to sheep rearing when he suggested——

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has informed the House that he has only one minute to go. Will you tell the House whether that is an accurate statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate can go on until 11.30 pm, but I get the distinct impression that both sides of the House want to come to a fairly quick conclusion.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) also suggested that the farmers of Cumbria should have been warned that they should take their sheep from the fells. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thought that they would do with those thousands of sheep. Perhaps they could have put them in the garden where the hon. Gentleman was at the time. What point is there in warning farmers to do something that they could not possibly do, and which would do no good anyway?
The hon. Member for Workington asked about compensation. I merely refer him to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, who feels that the compensation arrangements were, in general, suitable and proper in the circumstances. However, we shall certainly look at any particular cases that the hon. Gentleman raises.
The truth is that Opposition Members have to shout from a seated position, because they know perfectly well that they have been caught out in scaremongering, dangerous talk, attacking the farmers and the people of Britain. The hon. Member for South Shields has not had the courtesy to apologise to the House, the farmers and the nation.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 135.

Division No. 83]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ashdown, Paddy
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Beith, A. J.
Critchley, Julian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Curry, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Bowis, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg S Cl't's)
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Favell, Tony


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buck, Sir Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butcher, John
Forth, Eric


Butler, Chris
Fox, Sir Marcus






Franks, Cecil
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Fry, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon C.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neale, Gerrard


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Onslow, Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayward, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Portillo, Michael


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Raffan, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Redwood, John


Holt, Richard
Renton, Tim


Howard, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ryder, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jackson, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Janman, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speed, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Speller, Tony


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kirkwood, Archy
Steen, Anthony


Knapman, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knox, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Latham, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Lawrence, Ivan
Thurnham, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Trippier, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lightbown, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lilley, Peter
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Livsey, Richard
Wallace, James


Lord, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Macfarlane, Neil
Wheeler, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Wood, Timothy


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mans, Keith
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. David Maclean.


Maples, John



Marland, Paul






NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Litherland, Robert


Allen, Graham
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Anderson, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Loyden, Eddie


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
McAllion, John


Ashton, Joe
McAvoy, Tom


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
McFall, John


Beckett, Margaret
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bermingham, Gerald
McKelvey, William


Bidwell, Sydney
McLeish, Henry


Blair, Tony
McWilliam, John


Boateng, Paul
Madden, Max


Boyes, Roland
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Marek, Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Buckley, George
Martlew, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Maxton, John


Callaghan, Jim
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clay, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cohen, Harry
Morley, Elliott


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mullin, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Murphy, Paul


Crowther, Stan
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
O'Brien, William


Cummings, J.
O'Neill, Martin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Cunningham, Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Prescott, John


Dewar, Donald
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Dixon, Don
Quin, Ms Joyce


Douglas, Dick
Redmond, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Dunnachie, James
Reid, John


Eadie, Alexander
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Robertson, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rogers, Allan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Rowlands, Ted


Flannery, Martin
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Foster, Derek
Short, Clare


Galloway, George
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Soley, Clive


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steinberg, Gerald


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Stott, Roger


Heffer, Eric S.
Strang, Gavin


Henderson, Douglas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Home Robertson, John
Wall, Pat


Hood, James
Walley, Ms Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hoyle, Doug
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Illsley, Eric
Worthington, Anthony


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wray, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alun Michael.


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)



Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1893), dated 5th November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.

Sleeper Services (East Coast)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the proposed withdrawal of east coast sleeper services by British Rail. I understand the difficulty that the Government are in, because there are well-established rules governing relations between Government Departments and British Rail, as it is a commercial organisation. It is an important subject and, because it also affects Berwick-upon-Tweed, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has indicated that he would like to speak and the Minister has indicated that he is not averse to that.
I recognise that the Government have little role to play in the day-to-day management of British Rail. It is the management of British Rail that should shoulder managerial responsibility for decisions that are made. I also recognise that steps have to be taken to minimise financial losses. Profitability is rightly a major concern. However, having said that, I do not believe that the Government should be totally disinterested in or detached from the policies of British Rail and, in particular, its proposal to withdraw passenger sleeper services from Berwick-upon-Tweed down the east coast to King's Cross in London.
I and others, including my eminent constituent the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), feel that the Government have a residual responsibility to consider the coherence of the rail network as a whole. I am certainly persuaded that the proposed change affects the network as a whole and I therefore argue that the Government should take a direct and keen interest in the change in services planned to be introduced in May next year.
The profit motive cannot be allowed to override all other considerations. The national rail network cannot be reduced only to those routes that make profits on a clinical cost-benefit analysis. I submit that a rail network is a sophisticated and complex organisation whose contribution to the social well-being of our community cannot be reduced merely to accountants' profit and loss statements. The Government have a duty to satisfy themselves that the structure of British Rail's organisation is sensible, that the responsibility between departments within British Rail is appropriate, and that the yardsticks adopted for assessing profitability and levels of service are compatible with the Department of Transport's strategic transport plans.
The way in which the InterCity division of British Rail is calculating the returns from existing services is seriously flawed and can be said to be short-sighted. The proposed withdrawal is rightly and vigorously opposed by public opinion across a wide spectrum of views. If the Government were not aware of the extent of the opposition to the proposal, I hope that the debate will remedy that. I should tell the Minister that the problem does not just stop at Edinburgh. There is widespread apprehension forth of Edinburgh in a northerly direction that the east coast service to Aberdeen is called into some question by the consequences of the proposal that we are discussing.
I have received extensive and sustained adverse reaction across a wide spectrum of local public opinion: from representative bodies such as local authorities, community councils, the local National Farmers Union and other business organisations, as well as from travellers and individuals simply concerned about the proposed plans. In case the Minister does not know, I should tell him that there is an emotional and psychological aspect to the public opinion that I recognise and share. The closure of the Waverley route in the Borders region in Scotland caused immense traumatic damage locally. The effects of that withdrawal are still felt and the fear of any future rail withdrawals or closures resurrects the unhappy memories of the withdrawal of that route.
The proposal is viewed locally as another potential blow to the perceived economic importance of the area. It will have a profoundly depressing effect on business and commerce in the whole area and, whether it recognises the fact or not, British Rail is downgrading the economic status of the locality by virtue of its proposal. That is a matter of real regret and concern.
It is not that alternatives have not been put forward. British Rail and InterCity's analysis of the present situation has been questioned realistically, sensibly and seriously. The financial vability of the existing routes could be considerably improved by a combination of a better service and improved marketing. Does it make sense to electrify the east coast route and then close large parts of it down overnight for passenger services? Those are important questions that remain substantially unanswered.
I hope that the Minister can tell the House that this matter will be kept under review by his Department. I hope that he can allay fears that I have heard expressed recently that British Rail may even adopt the "feeder train" argument, if I may put it that way, to justify future reductions in daytime passenger InterCity services. That would make all London-bound passengers travel from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Newcastle or Edinburgh before boarding a non-stop or limited stop express InterCity train to King's Cross. That would be the beginning of the end of Berwick-upon-Tweed as a viable railway station. Berwick-upon-Tweed is crucial to the needs of my constituents and to the economy of the north-east. If sleeper services are withdrawn, it will be another significant nail in the coffin of the economic prospects and future of the region.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the Minister for allowing me to take part in the debate and I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject. The presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), many more of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and others demonstrates the strong feeling that is aroused in the House and along the east coast line about this outrageous proposal, which affects areas to the north of my constituency and many to the south, including Tyneside and Teesside, whose only access to a sleeper is via Newcastle.
It is not only sleepers but the overnight service, including nightrider trains, which have been popular with


students, young people and service men, that are affected. It is an extraordinary example of bogus accounting. The alleged savings are from one sector at the expense of another. The track is still there; it still has to be maintained and traffic will travel over it, unless British Rail has decided to lose all freight traffic. Apparently, the parcels division is in the process of losing the newspaper contracts. Seriously misleading accounting is leading British Rail to claim that it can make savings by abandoning the service altogether. On the contrary, it will lose, as some of its representatives have admitted in dicussions with hon. Members, a substantial amount of traffic to the airlines and coaches and it will fail to meet the needs of many of its customers.
What has characterised the service on the east coast line, particularly the sleeper service, has been the complete failure in marketing. I do not accept that the service cannot be run as a significant and valuable contributor to the effectiveness of InterCity, but it cannot be done without sensible marketing. That has been done in Edinburgh, where an attractive service is being provided. It is being expanded with the provision of lounge cars, but none of this has been done in Tyneside. I have seen no marketing of any description of the sleeper services from Berwick-upon-Tweed southwards.
Marketing also extends to fares. Business men can obtain an executive ticket on a sleeper from Edinburgh for £108. The same journey from Newcastle or Alnmouth will cost £130 for a return journey that is 200 miles shorter. That demonstrates that not even the slightest attempt has been made to market the service. Customers have been driven away systematically.
For two months after a timetable change two years ago, British Rail refused to take bookings for the sleeper service north of Newcastle because it did not believe that it was still running, so one had to book to Edinburgh to get on the train there. It is ironic that somebody who is described as a marketing manager in British Rail has been telling hon. Members that the service is running at a loss.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I did not want to interrupt the Adjournment debate, but I shall be brief. Is it not ironic that the same taxpayers—our constituents —will be deprived of this lifeline at a time of the year when flying is difficult and driving dangerous? Those same constituents must subsidise British Rail investment in the south-east for yuppie commuter services of £300 million per year.

Mr. Beith: That is why, when it is withdrawing services, British Rail cannot expect hon. Members from the north and Scotland to support what it is doing in the south-east. It has produced a succession of excuses. It has changed the arguments that it uses to defend this decision. At every meeting that I have attended it has produced a different set of arguments and it has refused to consider compromises and alternatives designed to meet its desire to shift traffic at night from the east coast route.
Different proposals have been put forward. I know that a northern group of Labour Members of Parliament has suggested an Edinburgh-Newcastle service via Carlisle down to Euston. I have proposed that BR should run a service via Birmingham, enabling some passengers to alight there on the way to Euston. It has refused these compromise suggestions and operated with a closed mind.
It is clear from the debate and the interest of hon. Members that we are not prepared to tolerate that closed-mind attitude and will fight until a proper service is guaranteed for the future.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is a regular user of the sleeper services on the east coast main line, and I can understand his concern at British Rail's decision to withdraw them from May next year. Running the railways is the job of the railways board—as the hon. Gentleman recognised—not the Government, and the withdrawal of sleeper services is a commercial decision taken by the board on commercial grounds. British Rail did not consult me or my Department before reaching its decision; nor did it consult me before deciding to start four new sleeper services, also from next May. British Rail has been trying to identify where the market warrants sleeper services and to provide them. It is withdrawing this one and starting four others. There is no reason why British Rail should consult me. Ministers do not intervene in such decisions, and it would be wrong for me to ask British Rail to change this decision.
The Government's main role is to set the rules and disciplines within which BR operates and then to leave it the freedom to get on and run the business without constant political interference. That is why we gave the chairman a clear and comprehensive set of objectives in 1983 and again last year. These objectives have been very successful in helping BR to manage the railway efficiently.
The Government have also set a date for the implementation of the policy first established by the Labour Government in their transport policy White Paper of 1977, when they stated that long distance inter-urban travel should not be subsidised. This is because the customer is ultimately best served by free competition between modes. That is why InterCity will not be eligible for grant after the end of this financial year. InterCity will then be like any other business—eager to find methods of creating, improving and retaining markets, but unable to keep going those which cannot be made profitable. Again, like any other business it will be reluctant to lose customers, which is why I hope that it has considered all the options for improving the east coast sleepers before coming to its decision.
There is no doubt that the Government have given InterCity a big challenge but, after all, as the director of that sector said only a couple of weeks ago, he likes a challenge. There is also no doubt that InterCity is critically examining its costs and revenues as never before — a salutory and extremely important task for a business which has to survive in the market place. But I must stress that it is BR's job to decide how best to meet the Government's objectives. It runs the railway and it must take the decisions—anything else would be a recipe for confusion and inefficiency.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that British Rail seems to have gone to considerable lengths to deter customers on this line by providing a service and timetable that are almost unusable, not only by those hon. Members who have spoken but by people on Tyneside and elsewhere?


The proposed alternative is just not good enough. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to talk further to British Rail about this matter?

Mr. Mitchell: I think that the most helpful way in which I can proceed in connection with the hon. Gentleman's allegations, and I hope that it will help the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, is if I draw the attention of the British Rail management to the points that have been made. It is right that, although the decisions rest with the board rather than with me, the board should be aware of hon. Members' views.
The Government's objectives are not the only reason why BR has been considering the future of the sleeper services on the east coast main line. At least as important, ironically, are the major improvements which electrification will bring to that line. The fastest service from Newcastle to London now takes three hours four minutes, and after the electrification that we authorised is completed it will take some 2 hours 40 minutes. The daytime services from stations such as Berwick will be fast and efficient. After the enormous investment on the line, I think that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire can rest assured that those services will be much more secure.
There are precious few places in this country where sleeper services are run for journeys as short as two hours 40 minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Manchester."] I shall come to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Liverpool."] One does not do the journey to Liverpool in two hours 40 minutes.
Precious few places have sleeper services on journeys as short as that. Indeed on many journeys to a London terminus taking that length of time no sleeper service is provided.
The result of improvements to daytime services is that demand for sleepers on the east coast line is falling. British Rail tells me that during the 40 weeks up to 9 August, an average of 14 people used the Newcastle to London sleeper services in each direction every night. From other stations on the line there were even fewer users—less than two a night between Berwick and London and only one every five nights between Alnmouth and London. That might even have been the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
The whole point about the changes that British Rail proposes is that they will provide a better timetabled service for those who seek to travel on the route.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister accept from me that about three months ago I had an altercation with a senior civil servant, whom I had better not name, who was not aware that the service from King's Cross to Edinburgh still existed?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to reaffirm that civil servants do not run the railways. I am not surprised that they do not know the details of the timetables. It is not their job to know them; it is British Rail's job.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that it would profoundly depress the economic viability of the whole area if the Berwick-upon-Tweed service was discontinued. On average, there are two sleeper passengers a night. I do not believe that the economy of the locality

is so fragile and so centred on two passengers a night that British Rail should have to provide that service at a huge loss. Moreover, the fare that those people are paying probably does not even cover the cost of stopping the train at that station, let alone all the other costs inherent in the operation.

Mr. Beith: The Minister really cannot suggest that a return fare of £136 does not justify stopping the train, or that the key business men and entrepreneurs whom we try to attract to areas such as ours are irrelevant to the future economy of those areas.

Mr. Mitchell: Of course I do not suggest that. In a moment I shall give the hon. Gentleman some figures which I hope will give him cause to think whether it is a proper use of resources to provide sleeper services for as few as two passengers a night—even if one of them is the hon. Gentleman.
I understand that because the average usage from these intermediate stations is low, British Rail makes a substantial loss on the sleepers on the east coast main line. It has calculated the difference between its costs in operating the service and the revenue that it receives. This amounts to an average of some £35 for each passenger using the sleepers on this line. That is nearly half the first class fare, including sleeper supplement, between King's Cross and Newcastle, and more than half of the second class fare plus sleeper supplement between King's Cross and Newcastle or Berwick. To put it another way, the passenger pays only about two-thirds of the cost of his journey.
This subsidy of £35 for each person making a single sleeper journey is at present paid by the taxpayer through public service obligation grant. From April it could only be paid by cross-subsidy from other passengers. I am not in any position to judge whether withdrawing the service altogether is the right answer, but I am sure that the current arrangements cannot continue. I understand that British Rail has considered various alternatives——

Mr. Beith: It has not.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman says that it has not. I am advised that it has. British Rail advised me that routing a sleeper to Newcastle via Carlisle has been considered but that it has been concluded that that would require an extra locomotive, which would be too expensive. Locomotives cost about £1 million each now. To have a £1 million locomotive to provide a service for the hon. Gentleman is something that, I think, he would not contemplate.

Mr. Beith: Can the Minister tell me how the train gets from Edinburgh to Carstairs without the use of a diesel locomotive?

Mr. Mitchell: There will be an electrified east coast main line at some future date. Currently, British Rail is proposing to provide a service on the west coast main line, which is electrified.
What is important is the level of service that will be available to people from Berwick and similar places, and the degree of inconvenience that they will suffer. As I said, there will be a considerable financial saving for British Rail by not providing the sleeper service on that line. However, passengers can use a new service. It is important to stress that, although British Rail has not found it possible to route trains direct to Newcastle, it has made provision in


next year's timetable for people who use the service now. Passengers can travel by sleeper from Euston to Edinburgh. They will have the benefit of better terminal facilities at Euston and more comfortable sleeping compartments. First class passengers can use the new lounge.
Passengers who use the new service will obviously be inconvenienced by having to change trains, but there will also be advantages — [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, I shall spell out those advantages. People travelling north can have breakfast on the connecting train and still get to Berwick at 7.40 am — which is not an unreasonable time to arrive—and to Newcastle at 8.35 am. That is in ample time for a normal day's business. On the southward journey, instead of having to get a train that leaves Berwick just after 9 pm, has no restaurant car and gets to London at the inconvenient time of 5.10 am, the hon. Gentleman's constituents can catch a train at 22.30, on which they can have a snack. They then change trains in Edinburgh and arrive in London at a far more convenient time of the morning than they would have done on the old service.

Mr. Fallon: I have the job of translating all of this to my constituents. Is my hon. Friend really saying that those of my constituents who want to go home after a long day's business in London will have to go to Carlisle, then up to Edinburgh to have breakfast, catch another train and go all the way back to Darlington?

Mr. Mitchell: I am not suggesting that. People who want to go to Darlington can catch a daytime service, which is so much quicker than it used to be.
I am not in a position lo judge whether British Rail has chosen the right way to deal with the undoubted problems of the sleeper service on the east coast main line——

Mr. Beith: Why not?

Mr. Mitchell: I did not form a judgment. I have simply advised the House of the information provided by British Rail about the service. I have undertaken to draw the hon. Gentleman's comments, and those of other hon. Members who have participated in this short debate, to the attention of British Rail management. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I am trying to be helpful. It would be wrong if I did not give to him all the information that British Rail has made available that relates to the points that he has raised.
As I said, I am not in a position to judge whether British Rail chose the best way. Nevertheless, something had to be done: there can be no justification for a subsidy of —35 for each passenger using such a service.

Mr. Beith: That is not true.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make that point to British Rail. If he can demonstrate that it is untrue, perhaps he will write to me, too, and I will ensure that his letter is discussed with British Rail.
British Rail should not bear the loss itself. It cannot forget for a moment the competition that it faces. Its product must be adjusted constantly to take account of new patterns of travel. British Rail is taking off one very underused service and putting on four new services in areas where it expects more demand.

Mr. Kirkwood: Where?

Mr. Mitchell: I should be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of services in other areas.
Such commercial decisions can be hard on existing passengers, and the House and the travelling public deserve a good explanation of the decisions taken, the reasons for them and the measures being taken to help those affected. It is clear from this debate that British Rail's explanation to local people has not been good enough. I accept that. I understand that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will take up these points with British Rail, and I have undertaken to supply British Rail with a copy of the report of the debate. That is the right thing for the hon. Gentleman to do, and I hope that British Rail can satisfy him. I hope that he will remember that his constituents will soon benefit from the biggest single railway investment undertaken since the nationalisation of the railways. The investment of £367 million on east coast main line electrification will ensure that the trains are so much faster——

Mr. Beith: Because they will not stop anywhere.

Mr. Mitchell: —that many people will not need sleeper services. They will be able to reach Newcastle and Darlington in time for business engagements in the morning.
But having said all that, I accept that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to answers to the questions that he has asked, and I trust that British Rail will provide those answers. But as he probes the matter, I believe that he will find that it is not as he envisaged it when he began this Adjournment debate tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.